Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL CANTEENS (WAGES BOARD)

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give consideration to the appointment of a Miners' Welfare Corn-mission representative on the Wages Board to be set up for workers in industrial canteens who has had experience in the organisation of canteens in the mining industry.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The members of the Wages Board, apart from the independent appointed members, have to be persons who represent the employers and workers concerned. I regret, therefore, that it is not open to me to appoint a representative of the Miners Welfare Commission in this capacity. I am considering the desirability of appointing to the Board persons who may be regarded as representing employers and workers in relation to canteens in the mining industry.

Mr. Foster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a large number of canteens at collieries now and that the organiser in the district for the Miners' Welfare Committee is responsible for organising the staff of the canteens? Could he give any indication how the welfare committee could be represented on the Board?

Mr. Bevin: I have said in my answer that I am considering the desirability of appointing to the Board persons who may be regarded as representing employers and workers in relation to the canteen business, and I am willing to place at the disposal of the Miners' Welfare Commission all the experience we have gained in running canteens for munitions workers.

Mr. Foster: Would it be possible for, say, a joint body representing employers and workers to suggest or appoint repre-sentatives on the Board?

Mr. Bevin: I would like to have notice of that question. I cannot carry the constitution of the Board in my head.

Oral Answers to Questions — FEE-CHARGING EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the nature of the reply he gave to the deputation which waited on him in January to urge the trade union case for the abolition of fee-charging agencies in this country.

Mr. Bevin: The deputation referred to waited upon me for the purpose of an ex-change of views upon the question of the abolition of fee-charging employment agencies. I do not think that it is desirable, nor would it be in accordance with normal practice, to disclose the details of such discussions.

Sir L. Lyle: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be unfortunate, not to say unfair, that these private agencies, which have been practically closed down during the war—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is asking for an opinion, and not for information.

Sir John Mellor: Has my right hon. Friend seen representatives of the fee-charging agencies?

Mr. Bevin: They have been received at my Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Service Caps, Buttons and Badges (Labour)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that service caps, metal buttons and woven or metal badges are manufactured for sale in shops to non-commissioned members of the forces, despite such caps being normally unauthorised and plastic buttons and printed or plastic badges being free issues; and whether he will withdraw labour wasted on such manufacture and sale and divert it to war work.

Mr. Bevin: There are no safeguards for labour engaged upon the manufacture


and sale of the articles mentioned by my hon. Friend for the purposes to which he refers. If, however, he will let me have particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. Keeling: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that I have sent him particulars?

Mr. Bevin: I was not aware of that.

Mr. Driberg: Does not a certain security danger arise when anybody can walk into a shop and buy badges, division signs and flashes of various units, and will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Service Departments about this aspect of the matter?

Mr. Bevin: I would like to have notice of that Question.

Major John Morrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Army is set an example, on very high authority, for wearing two cap badges?

Coalmining (Compulsory Recruitment)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to prevent boys from escaping the risk of being sent down the pits by volunteering for service with the Armed Forces a few months before they are due to be called up.

Mr. Bevin: I do not contemplate any such steps at present.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in several public schools, boys are actually advised to take this step, and do take it? If I send cases will he investigate them?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Disabled Service Men (Light Work)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Labour what percentage of men discharged from the Services owing to injuries or other disabilities are too unfit for training but capable of light work; and what action he is taking in such cases.

Mr. Bevin: The suggestion that there is a category of persons too unfit for training but capable of light work, seems to me unsound. In general, those who are physically fit for light work are

physically fit for training for a light occupation. The distinction properly to be drawn is between those disabled persons who have the capacity to learn a skilled occupation and those who have not. The former receive training if required, and in present circumstances the latter are readily placed in suitable unskilled employment.

Colonel Burton: Is there any age limitation?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Coalmining Trainees (Hostel, Coventry)

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour if he has considered the conditions prevailing at the hostel of the Salvation Army at Coventry where mining trainees are billeted; how many baths are there for the use of the men; if he is aware that the food is poor and the men often go to work without breakfast; that when the trainees go home for a week end tramps are allowed to sleep in their beds; and if he will take steps to improve conditions in this hostel.

Mr. Bevin: I have no reason to believe that the conditions are unsatisfactory at this hostel. There are 12 baths for the use of the men, and five more are being added. The food is good, and no man need go to work without breakfast. The beds of men away for the week-end are reserved for them, but I am informed that on one occasion a night watchman, who has since been dismissed, disobeyed instructions and allowed other workmen to use some of the beds. No tramps are admitted to the hostel. The Salvation Army authorities have been most ready to meet the suggestions of my Welfare Officers in regard to facilities at the hostel and further improvements will be made as required.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister seen the article in the "Daily Worker" of 17th March stating that these conditions exist? If he has not, I had better send it to him and we had better know what he intends doing with this kind of Press.

Mr. Bevin: I did see the article. It is a tissue of lies. It is the Communist method of supporting the war.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Are not these hostels, in the main, subject to investiga-


tion and regular attention by the welfare officers; and is there not adequate machinery to provide for any adjustment of any deficiencies that may be complained of?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is it not a fact that the Salvation Army are doing a magnificent work?

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister understand that I am not attacking the Salvation Army, but that I am after those who are attacking them?

Non-Essential Building Work

Mr. Reakes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware of the large number of men, many of military age, who are allowed to be engaged on painting buildings and other work not contributive to the war effort; and whether he will take steps to eliminate all work of a semi-luxury type until the end of hostilities.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that there are no grounds for the suggestion that many men of military age are engaged on non-essential building work. Moreover, expenditure of more than £100 on any building is strictly controlled by licence.

Mr. Reakes: Is the Minister aware that my Question is based on observations made by myself last week, when I saw these men, many of them young, painting the railings of a hotel, and that I have had similar experiences in other parts of the country?

Mr. Hicks: It is not very general.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Injured Personnel (Allowances)

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the representations from the Association of Chief Wardens, London Region, complaining of the inadequacy of war service injuries allowances for part-time, as opposed to full-time, Civil Defence workers; and whether he will now consider putting them on an equal footing.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The scale of injury allowances payable under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme to Civil Defence workers who sustain injuries whilst engaged in Civil Defence duty is the same for whole-time and part-time members. I have received a letter from the Association of Chief Wardens (London Region) about the conditions under which local authorities are authorised to Make payments in supplementation of injury allowances. Upon this aspect of the matter I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth on 19th January last, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Sir A. Belt: Is there not a great difference in the amount payable under the Civil Defence Workers (War Injuries) Scheme and under other schemes for men not engaged on Civil Defence?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, there are differences.

Sir A. Belt: Then my right hon. Friend has not answered the Question why part-time workers should, after 13 weeks, suffer a reduction in injuries payment as opposed to full-time workers?

Mr. Morrison: I wish my hon. Friend had made that clear in his Question. There are, of course, differences between the full-time Civil Defence worker, and the soldier for that matter, and the ordinary civilian. Part-time Civil Defence workers, including the great body of fire guards, are in a middling position. We could not get them all on the same basis.

Sir A. Beit: In view of the fact that my Question did not make the position clear, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fire Guard Arrangements

Sir Oliver Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Regulations regarding fire-watching have been reviewed in the light of recent air-raids; and what conclusions have been reached.

Mr. H. Morrison: The recent raids have shown that the present fire guard arrangements are substantially sound, but in the


light of experience various improvements in detail are being introduced and will be announced as soon as possible.

Sir O. Simumonds: In view of the very heavy pressure under which workers in certain industries will be working during the next few months, will my right hon. Friend give particular attention to them, to see that they are not unnecessarily fatigued by doing fire-watching which can, in present circumstances, be eliminated?

Mr. Morrison: I have done that generally all the way along, but I hope that hon. Members will not spread the feeling in the existing situation that fire-guarding is not necessary. It is necessary. Where we can relax we have done it, and we will continue to do it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS (EXPECTANT MOTHERS)

Mrs. Beatrice Wright: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the arrangements made for the care of expectant mothers in prisons; and whether the house mistress recently appointed to Holloway is qualified to deal with these cases.

Mr. H. Morrison: Special attention is paid to the health of expectant mothers in prison, and I am satisfied that they receive all necessary care and treatment both before and after their confinement. The purposes for which it has been decided to appoint a, House-mistress at Holloway Prison do not include such special care as a prisoner may need because she is an expectant mother. Such special care is provided by the medical and nursing staff, which includes three women doctors and a number of trained nurses and qualified midwives.

Mrs. Wright: Has my right hon. Friend made a recent investigation as to the care these women are having, and has he up-to-date information?

Mr. Morrison: I think so, and I am exceedingly anxious that, as far as it is practicable, they should have as good treatment as they would get from the local authority if they were not in prison.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many expectant mothers on the average are in Holloway each week?

Mr. Morrison: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSIVES (FATAL ACCIDENTS TO CHILDREN)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records he has of the numbers of children killed by playing with explosives, either our own or of enemy origin, which they have picked up; and whether warnings on the subject can be given at regular intervals in schools.

Mr. H. Morrison: Complete statistics of these cases are not available, but there were reports in the Press in 1942 of fatal accidents to sixty children and in 1943 to 34 children from handling Service ammunition and similar dangerous articles. I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education has on several occasions in the last two years requested schools to warn all school children periodically of the danger of interfering with strange objects, and illustrated warning posters have been widely displayed at schools and police stations.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTOXICATING LIQUOR (YOUNG PERSONS)

Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that the law which states that young people under the age of 18 years must not be served with or treated to intoxicants on licensed premises is being strictly enforced.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am satisfied that the police, the licensing justices and the great majority of the licensees are fully alive to the importance of doing everything possible to enforce these provisions; and last December I arranged, with, the help of the Brewers Society and the National Consultative Council of the Retail Liquor Trade, that for the purpose of enlisting the co-operation of the public a notice should be prominently exhibited in all bars setting out the provisions of the law in simple terms. Recently a postcard campaign on this subject has been organised by a religious body in order, as the organisers say, "to ensure that members of the Government are flooded with cards at about the same time." While I appreciate the motives of these organisers, this flood of cards does not, of course, provide any evidence or information as to the extent to which there is failure to comply with the law.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Does not the Minister agree that reports coming in from all parts of the country show that there is an increase in heavy drinking among young people, particularly girls, and that it would assist both publicans and police if the identity cards showed the year of birth?

Viscountess Astor: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give an answer with regard to identity cards? Does he not know that there is anxiety in the whole country on this matter?

Mr. Guy: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time that a no-treating order was introduced?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRES (NOTIFICATION)

Sir William Wayland: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is necessary, in the case of the notification to a local N.F.S. station by any individual or individuals of a fire in the town, for the station to wait for the authorisation of the sector captain before proceeding to the fire, although the sector captain's quarters may be half to three-quarters of a mile away.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir. Action is taken by the National Fire Service on all reports of fires, but fires reported direct by the public to the National Fire Service instead of through the fire guard sector channel throw an unnecessary burden upon the National Fire Service communications system. Fires should, therefore, be reported through the fire guard sector wherever the Fire Guard Plan has been established.

Captain Duncan: Is the Minister aware that there have been allegations about the way this sort of thing is being done, and will he investigate them?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know what the allegations are. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars I will look into them. It is not much good making general allegations in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOLCHILDREN (AGRICULTURAL WORK)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has taken any action

to improve the conditions under which children of school age may be employed in agricultural work.

Mr. H. Morrison: For the last two years the employment of school children in agriculture has been governed by a Defence Regulation made in April, 1942. The working of this Regulation has been carefully watched and on the whole it can be said that it has worked well. Corn-plaints have, however, been made that in certain areas children have been employed in sugar beet lifting, and that this is unsuitable work for them. Children have also been employed by gang masters under conditions of work inferior to those generally found where the children are employed by the farmers direct. A further Regulation has therefore now been made prohibiting the employment of children in sugar beet lifting or other agricultural work involving heavy strain, and debarring gang masters from employing children of school age. A circular is being issued to local education authorities informing them of the new Regulation.

Mr. Lindsay: While being grateful for this genuine reform, may I ask whether he will also keep an eye, in conjunction with the local education authorities, on the hours that are worked?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bowles: Does that new Regulation apply to children who are alleged to be mentally deficient and who are employed on farms for no pay at all, while their parents have to pay for their upkeep?

Mr. Morrison: This Regulation does not deal with that matter at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE REGULATION 18B (INTERNEES)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the request he has recently received regarding the trial or release of British subjects interned under Regulation 18B; and what answer he has returned to this request.

Mr. H. Morrison: If this Question refers to a petition sent by a lady who was formerly a member of the British Union and is now Secretary of an organisation described as "The Petition of Right Council," I can only say that on the


question raised by this petition I am answerable to Parliament and I could find nothing in the petition to which an answer has not already been given in this House.

Sir T. Moore: I dislike labouring this question, but can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the policy of the Government to carry on this restraint of British subjects for the duration of the war?

Mr. Morrison: I have answered this question of trial about ten times in this House, I think to the satisfaction of the House. I am really surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should raise it again.

Mr. Petherick: In view of the changed circumstances and the altered military situation since the detention of the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay), who is still incarcerated, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman now considers it possible to bring him before a Select Committee of this House?

Mr. Morrison: That matter has also been discussed. The position of the hon. and gallant Member is considered from time to time, and will be so considered in the future. I am not convinced at this juncture that he ought to be released.

Oral Answers to Questions — "NO TREATING" RESTRICTIONS, 1914–18

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long the No Treating Order was valid during the last war; and what was its effect on the reduction of drunkenness.

Mr. H. Morrison: No general Order prohibiting treating throughout the country was ever in force. In October, 1914, Lord Kitchener issued an appeal to civilians to refrain from placing temptation in the way of the troops by immoderate treating. In June, 1915,, the Central Control Board, which had been set up by the Minister of Munitions because drunkenness affecting naval, military and industrial efficiency was prevalent in certain areas, was empowered to impose local restrictions of various kinds. Gradually these restrictions were applied to areas covering a large part of the country. Amongst these restrictions there was included a "no

treating" provision. The first of these provisions came into operation in the central part of Newhaven in June, 1915, and all the "No Treating" provisions were repealed in June, 1919. How far the improvements effected were due to the "no treating" restrictions as distinct from numerous other restrictions, particularly the drastic curtailment of permitted hours, it is impossible to say. Some responsible observers believed that the "no treating" restrictions had value, but the conditions prevailing 30 years ago, when charges for drunkenness numbered over 212,000 as against 28,000 in 1942, are fortunately so remote from present-day conditions that guidance as to present-day policy cannot, I think, be drawn from such scanty information as is available regarding the effect of the "no treating" Orders during the last war.

Viscountess Astor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that something ought to be done to relieve the anxiety of people who are deeply worried about the treating of young girls in public houses? Would not a no-treating order help in this very important matter?

Mr. Morrison: I am quite aware, that there is anxiety on the point but, really, the drink situation has been revolutionised in the intervening period. Although I am a supporter of delegated legislation in certain respects, I try not to overburden the community with new Regulations unless there is a good case for them.

Sir W. Wayland: Does not the present price of beer prevent drunkenness?

Mr. McGovern: Is it not the case that the greater the restrictions the greater the drunkenness? Is not the best way to eliminate drunkenness to cater completely for the amusement of troops and public?

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to hon. Members that this Question relates to the last war and not to the present war.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that more women drink in this war than did in the last war?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Secondary School Teachers

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education what proportion of the teachers in secondary schools, including the public schools, held a certi-


ficate or diploma indicating that they had received training in the theory and practice of education prior to their being appointed to teaching posts.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): In 1938, the last year for which figures are available, 61 per cent. of the full-time teachers in grant-aided secondary schools had taken a course of training or passed an examination in the principles and practice of teaching. No figures are available for the independent public schools.

Mr. Lipson: I did not quite catch the proportion.

Mr. Ede: It was 61 per cent. of full-time teachers in grant-aided secondary schools. We shall get the figures with regard to the independent schools only after Part III of the Education Bill comes into operation.

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education how many local authorities permit the head teachers of secondary schools under their control to appoint the members of their staffs and how many do not.

Mr. Ede: The Model Articles for provided secondary schools suggest that assistant teachers should be appointed either by, or upon the nomination of, or after consultation with, the head teacher. The great majority of local education authorities have adopted one or other of these alternatives in framing their Articles of Government, but I have no precise figures available.

Direct-Grant Schools (Non-Fee-Paying Pupils)

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education how many pupils there are in direct-grant schools and how many of them receive their education fee.

Mr. Ede: On 1st October, 1938, the latest date for which complete figures are available, there were 84,055 pupils in directorant secondary schools, of whom 23,398 paid no fees.

Mr. Lipson: Does not that answer indicate that a very large proportion of pupils in direct-grant schools have fees paid for them, and therefore does not that raise a very important problem in dealing with this question?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member is as capable of drawing an inference as I am.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Housing Act, 1933 (Guarantee)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange that the guarantee required from the Government and local authorities under the Housing Act, 1933, be given immediately upon the approval of the plans and the acceptance of the housing scheme instead of, as at present, when the house is completed.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): All acceptable proposals for the guarantee are already approved before building is commenced; but the guarantee does not and cannot come into operation until the advance to which it applies is made by the building society. Where a society is prepared to make an advance before the completion of building, I am prepared to consider a proposal that a guarantee should be given at the same stage.

New Dwellings (Inspection)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health if he will give instructions to local authorities that no newly built house, flat or other domestic dwelling shall be occupied where the material used and the workmanship have not been periodically inspected during construction, a thorough inspection made when finished and, if the dwelling complies with the approved standards, a habitation certificate has been issued.

Mr. Willink: I have at present no power to issue instructions of this kind. Whether or not such power would provide the best means of controlling the standards of private enterprise building is one of the questions which is being examined by my Central Housing Advisory Committee.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that houses built by local authorities require the same supervision as those built by private enterprise?

Old Houses (Replacement)

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are in the United Kingdom 4,607,679 houses which were 80 to 254 years old in 1941 the great majority of which have passed their economic life and, therefore, are due for demolition; and will the Government's post-war policy for better housing be sufficiently comprehensive to cover organised demolition and replacement of these houses.

Mr. Willink: I am aware that there is a large number of very old houses in this country. As I have already stated, the programme for the building of 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 houses in the ten to twelve years after the war involves the replacement of slum dwellings and of dwellings in a poor condition or grossly deficient in modern amenities.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am referring not to slum dwellings but to those which have passed their economic life, and is he not prepared to announce a national policy which will deal with the whole of the housing and the building industry?

Mr. Willink: I think the hon. Member will find that my answer deals with buildings that have passed their economic life.

Lettings (Inducements)

Mr. Reakes: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that on Merseyside advertisers are offering bottles of whiskey and substantial sums of money for house tenancies; what steps he proposes to take to stop people encouraging property owners to let houses at extortionate rentals; and will he make such advertisements illegal.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir, but if the hon. Member will send me particulars I will bring them to the attention of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rent Control.

Mr. Reakes: Will the Minister accept my assurance that the advertisement on which my Question is based actually appeared last week in one of the Merseyside newspapers?

Mr. Witlink: If the hon. Member will send me those particulars, I have indicated the course I shall take.

Private Enterprise

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the part private enterprise will be permitted to play in post-war housing.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in my view this is an urgent and important matter. The report of the Sub-Committee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee, which has examined all aspects of the subject, is now in draft

and I hope to receive it by the end of next month. I shall announce to the House the Government's decisions on the report as soon as possible.

Captain Duncan: Would my right hon. and learned Friend indicate to me when he is ready so that another question can be put down?

Mr. Willink: Certainly, Sir.

Sir O. Simmonds: Would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that if he wants to avoid financial waste the way to build houses is by private enterprise?

Prefabrication

Mr. J. H. Hollins: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Building Research Station has reported on the prefabricated steel structure for houses; and whether he will arrange for this report, together with the plans and model, to be placed on exhibition in the House for the benefit of Members.

Mr. Hicks: I have been asked to reply. I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the temporary house to which the Prime Minister recently referred. The Building Research Station has been associated with the development from the outset, step by step. There has thus been no formal report. The prototype will be completed at the end of April. It will be conveniently situated for inspection by hon. Members who will be given the first opportunity to view it.

Sir O. Simmonds: Could the Minister try to find a better word than "prefabrication" in order to make these houses attractive to those who will live in them?

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will name the private firms which the Government will harness to the work of making prefabricated houses; and whether he will publish a statement showing what will be the financial arrangements between these firms and the Government.

Mr. Hicks: As soon as the prototype is finally approved, the Government will enter into firm contracts with suitable firms on normal lines so as to secure the fullest use of the productive capacity available.

Sir R. Acland: When that happens, will the details of the firms, the financial terms and such like be published to the community, or will they remain secret?

Mr. Hicks: I think the hon. Member had better ask that question later, when the contracts are entered into.

Sir R. Acland: Would the Minister say how I may know when to ask the question?

Mr. Hicks: I do not know that it is the general rule that, in every contract entered into by a Government Department, the details should be published. I do not know any reason why we should not give information in this case. There is nothing underhand about it, but I do not think it is the general rule.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are not the names of the firms in question already known?

Mr. Hicks: No, not yet.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Health what proportion of persons insured at present under the National Health Contributory Scheme do not choose or use any panel doctor at all; and what proportion choose but do not use one.

Mr. Willink: The proportion of insured persons who have not chosen panel doctors is at present about six per cent., but probably most of these are recent entrants into insurance who will exercise their right of choice at some future time. The average proportion before the war was between two and three per cent. No information is available as to the proportion of insured persons who choose a doctor but do not make use of his services.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not a fact that there is a percentage of people in this country, as in every other country, who are never ill at all and die suddenly?

Mr. Willink: That is why there is no information as to the second part of the Question.

MENTAL HOSPITALS (STAFFS)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Health if he is able to give the number of

staff employed, male and female, in the mental hospitals in this country; to what extent there is a shortage of staff and how is the work being done; and what does he propose to do to meet such a situation.

Mr. Willink: I regret that I am unable to give the figures asked for but I am aware that there is a shortage of staff in most mental hospitals. In general, staffs are working longer hours and in some cases leave has been curtailed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is aware of the position and is taking such steps as are possible to relieve it.

BOMBED SITES (CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUNDS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the exclusion of children from many parks and open, spaces taken ' over for military purposes and of the fact that more children were killed on the roads in February than in any previous February of the war, he will take powers to cause local authorities to make suitable bombed sites available as children's playgrounds.

Mr. Willink: I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation for this purpose generally, but I am prepared to consider individual proposals on their merits. I should, of course, have to take account of the shortage of labour and materials involved in the work.

Mr. Keeling: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not consider making proposals or suggestions to the local authorities to deal with a very serious situation?

Mr. Willink: I am quite prepared to consider that, but the Question dealt with compelling local authorities.

Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, jointly with the Board of Education, seize this as a chance for a piece of imaginative administration?

Mr. Willink: This is not a very easy period for imaginative administration.

PUBLIC INSTITUTION INMATE (EMPLOYMENT)

Colonel Burton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to report upon his investigations regard-


ing a man who was alleged to have been compelled to cease work and go into a public institution.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. My investigations show that the man was out of work at the time when he and his family were admitted to the institution, and that he was allowed to go out daily to look for work and accommodation. Any statements to the contrary that appeared in the Press were inaccurate.

Colonel Burton: While that answer is very satisfactory, may I ask the Minister whether he will see that similar publicity is given to his reply as was given to the allegation?

WATER SUPPLIES, EAST ANGLIA

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that owing to abnormally dry conditions in East Anglia there is a serious shortage of water; and what steps he proposes taking to deal with the possibilities of drought.

Mr. Willink: I am aware that there is a shortage of water in parts of the Eastern Counties. My Department is in close touch with the water undertakers concerned giving advice and help as necessary. I am about to issue a general Circular to water undertakers throughout the country which is based on the advice given and action taken in particular cases, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy. I have already issued a general appeal to the public to save water with the object of avoiding onerous restrictions later, and have asked for the co-operation of the Service and Supply Departments in respect of camps, aerodromes and war establishments generally. My officers, both centrally and in the Civil Defence Regions, are ready at all times to confer with water undertakers who are in difficulties and to assist them in every way possible.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the shortage of drinking water in these country districts is now a very serious question, and that unless we get rain it will be very acute? Does he not think it falls on the Ministry of Health to devise some emergency steps, and can he give us an assurance that he has taken every possible opportunity to get in touch with the

Service Ministers to see that there is the fullest co-operation in the camps and aerodromes?

Mr. Willink: I shall do all I can but I cannot cause more rain to fall.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a drought is not just a possibility but a certainty in many parts of the country, and can he assure the House that his Department are in close touch with the other Departments concerned, especially the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Willink: I can assure the House that I am in touch with all the Departments concerned.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the acute water shortage position in the Evesham district?

DESTITUTE CHILDREN (PUBLIC RELIEF)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Health if he can state the number of destitute children maintained by local authorities and by the public assistance authorities, respectively, and what measure of official inspection exists in each case.

Mr. Willink: The total number of children in receipt of relief, including outdoor relief, on 1st January, 1939 (which is the latest date for which figures are available) was 293,510. I regret that it is not possible to state how many of these were maintained by the education committees, acting on behalf of the public assistance committees of county and county borough councils, but it would be only a small proportion. In respect of all these children there is a system of inspection, mainly by women inspectors of my Department, which should ensure at least annual visits to Children's Homes and test visits to the home of children boarded out or otherwise relieved.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Is the Minister taking steps to keep his information up to date?

Mr. Willink: While I am taking steps it is impossible to keep all statistical information up to date in present circumstances.

BABIES' HOME, HORSFORTH

Mr. Muff: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is aware that the Leeds Church of England Council has acquired a detached house in the urban district of Horsforth for the purpose of using it as a maternity home; that the Horsforth Urban Council refuse -to allow the house to be used as a maternity home; and will he take steps to secure that this establishment is used.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am not aware of the facts stated in the Question, but an appeal has been made to me under Sub-section (5) of Section to of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, by the Leeds Diocesan Rescue and Protection Society against the refusal of the Urban District Council of Horsforth to permit the use of premises for a babies' home, and a hearing in the appeal has been -fixed for 19th April.

TOWN PLANNING (BOMB-PROOF SHELTERS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister Town and Country Planning whether, in considering town planning schemes, due regard is being paid to the need of providing adequate bomb-proof shelters for the locality; and whether this factor has been brought to the attention of local authorities.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The question to what extent such provision must be made after the war cannot yet -be determined; but, as the hon. Member is aware, local authorities are providing shelters for immediate purposes, under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the Minister aware that, in view of the possibility of our being involved in another war, it is highly desirable that bomb-proof shelters shall be considered in any planning for the rebuilding of this country?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; these considerations form part of the general planning for the rebuilding of the country, and we shall not lose sight of them.

Mr. Sorensen: Have any recommendations been made to the local authorities

that will involve long-term planning on that point?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir; not yet.

ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the minimum and maximum of income coming into the homes of parents who have applied for pension before the parents are designated to be in pecuniary need; what is the maximum income per unit of the household; is any consideration given to the infirm or crippled persons in the homes of the applicants; and whether any considerations are given to parents who have to pay towards members of the family who have been evacuated from the bombed areas.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The test of pecuniary need for the purposes of parents' pensions is not a fixed sum per unit of the household, but is a combined means limit, adapted to the circumstances of the particular household and taking account of the support previously given by the deceased son. For particulars of the Scheme I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Deritend (Sir S. Crooke) on 28th October last, of which I am sending him a copy. Special consideration would be given to any case in which the presence of an infirm or crippled person in the home, or the evacuation of a member of the household from a bombed area, necessarily involves the parents in additional expenditure.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the economic circumstances of many of these homes are changed with dramatic suddenness in such a situation, and that the policy announced last week does not meet the value of the loss of human life?

Sir W. Womersley: I am aware of all these circumstances, and I am taking them into account. I think if the hon. Member will read the particulars I am sending him, he will change his opinion.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the very strong feeling on this point, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account a proposition which has been made to him several times, and pay money to the parents by way of solace, as is done under workmen's compensation law?

Sir W. Womersley: I have indicated, over and over again, in this House, what is the Government's decision, and I cannot do more than that.

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has now a statement to make regarding accidents sustained by members of the Home Guard and by unpaid part-time Civil Defence personnel on journeys to and from duty.

Sir W. Womersley: I am glad to inform my hon. and learned Friend that I am now authorised to treat these persons as if they had been on duty when making journeys which would not have been undertaken except for the purpose of the public service, given by them as an addition to their normal employment. I am also able, on application, to review past rejections on this basis, and any resulting awards will begin from the first pay-day in April.

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Pensions whether any pension, and, if so, of what value, is granted to a widow not gainfully employed whose husband has been killed by one of our own shells.

Sir W. Womersley: The pension awarded in the circumstances stated is the same as that awarded to a widow whose husband was killed by enemy action. Where the husband was a Civil Defence member killed on duty, or a gainfully occupied person, the rate of pension is 26s. 8d. a week if the widow is over 40 years of age, or has dependent children who are eligible for allowances, or is incapable of self-support, and 20s. a week if none of these conditions is fulfilled. Additional allowances are payable for dependent children. The award is the same whether the widow was gainfully occupied or not.

DISABLED SERVICE MEN (REHABILITATION)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Pensions what residential fitness centres are maintained by his Department for disabled Service men for whom liability is accepted and to whose recovery short periods of rest would contribute; and whether he can make any statement on the subject.

Sir W. Womersley: Rest centres as such are not maintained by my Department, but when a pensioner receives treatment

for his accepted disability in a Ministry hospital full attention is also given to his need for rehabilitation before he is discharged.

INDIA (LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND GOVERNMENT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the present political composition of the Central Assembly; how many of its members are in detention; the composition of the Government; how often and on what issues it has been defeated during the past 12 months; and what was the political composition, respectively, of the majority and the minority.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): With the hon. Member's permission, I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as I have with regard to his comprehensive series of questions on the composition and recent history of Indian political institutions.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn not only to the recent defeat of the Government by a majority, but also to other defeats; and what significance can be attached to them?

Mr. Amery: My views on these matters cannot be dealt with in answer to a question.

Mr. McGovern: Is the attitude of the Government to Members of this House on the occasion of the recent defeat of the Government similar to that adopted towards the Indian Legislative Assembly?

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that the majority which defeated the Government consisted not of Congress members but of non-Congress members?

Following is the information:

I understand that at the end of 1942 the main parties in the 102 elected members of the Legislative Assembly were composed as follows:—Congress 38, Nationalists 13, Moslem League 23, Europeans 11. In addition to the elected members there are 39 nominated members. I have no information regarding the number of members at present in detention.

The Government of India consists of 4 Hindu Members, 4 Moslems, 1 Sikh, 1 Scheduled Caste, and 1 non-official


European in addition to the Viceroy, the Commander-in-Chief and 2 Official Members. All the Indian Members are non-officials of long political experience and high standing. The composition of the Viceroy's Executive Council is however not based on representation of political parties in the Legislature. Government were defeated on the 8th November last on a motion relating to arrangements for four non-official Indians to publicise the Indian war effort in England and America; on the 9th February, on a motion relating to certain arrears, made under the Defence of India Rules, and, more recently, over certain items of their Budget proposals, culminating in the rejection of the Finance Bill on 27th March. No analysis of the division lists on these occasions is yet available, but I understand from Press reports that Congress, Nationalist and Moslem League members combined to vote against the Government.

POST-WAR MONETARY ARRANGEMENTS (BRITISH EMPIRE)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, at a recent conference with representatives of Dominion countries, currency questions were under review; what conclusions were reached; whether these were satisfactory to the Dominions; and did His Majesty's Government retain the right to conclude agreements with the Dominions if wider agreements among the United Nations should not prove possible.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): There have been a number of discussions within the last two years between the United Kingdom officials and officials of the Dominions and India, regarding post-war monetary arrangements. These have been expert and exploratory discussions. The stage of reaching conclusions on the part of the Governments concerned has not yet arrived, and it will be remembered that I have told the House that no commitments will be entered into until after this question has been discussed in Parliament. The last part of the Question does not, therefore, arise. But I may say that it will certainly be the policy of the United Kingdom Government to retain the right to maintain monetary arrangements with the Dominions and India if

wider agreements among the United Nations should not prove possible, and, further, it will be their policy to maintain such arrangements within the framework of any such wider agreement.

Mr. Shinwell: That is very satisfactory so far as it goes, but will my right hon. Friend say whether the latter part of the reply has been communicated to the Dominion Governments?

Sir J. Anderson: It is well understood.

ELECTRICITY PRICES, FALMOUTH

Mr. Petherick: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will order a local inquiry to be held into the recent rise in the price of electricity in Falmouth, owing to the fact that consumers are being obliged to pay for the increased cost of the destruction of the town's refuse, for which increase they are not liable.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. T. Smith): No, Sir. My right hon. and gallant Friend is fully aware of the facts of the case. He recently authorised an increase of 10 per cent. in the price of electricity at Falmouth because he considered that the financial position of the Electricity Supply Corporation justified that course. That position had deteriorated for a number of reasons, principally the following. Under a long-standing contract, the Supply Corporation are bound, in connection with the working of their undertaking, to operate a destructor for the town's refuse". In consequence of the reduction, resulting from the salvage campaign,. in the amount of refuse sent for destruction, there was a decrease in the amount of electricity generated, with a consequent increase in the bulk supply taken by the Supply Corporation from a neighbouring undertaker. No corresponding reduction could be made in the cost of working the destructor. My right hon. and gallant Friend has, of course, no power to intervene in a matter of contract of this kind.

Mr. Petherick: Is my hon. Friend seriously defending the situation in which consumers of electricity who are in no way responsible for the increased costs are made to pay those same costs?

Mr. Smith: Yes; my right hon. and gallant Friend was fully aware of the fact when he authorised this increase. As the hon. Member knows, this as a long-standing contract; and, in authorising this increase, my right hon. and gallant Friend took into account all the facts of the case.

Mr. Petheriek: As there is a matter of principle involved, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

RETAIL LICENCE HOLDERS (COMMISSION OF THE PEACE)

Mr. J. H. Hollins: asked the Attorney-General how far the non-statutory bar imposed by the Lord Chancellor against the appointment of retail licence-holders to the Commission of the Peace is extended to the elimination of persons who are only professionally associated with the retail licensed trade and persons who are employed at licensed premises.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): For many years successive Lord Chancellors have refrained from appointing to the Bench persons who are in possession of retail licences. As regards persons who are only professionally associated with the retail licensed trade and persons employed at licensed premises, each case must be considered on its merits.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that persons employed by licensees and persons employed by retailers are also the subject of the same ban?

The Attorney-General: I was not aware of that. I have no doubt that if my hon. Friend will give me particulars, my Noble Friend will consider them. There are cases where the association is clearly such that the ban ought to apply; but if my hon. Friend knows of cases which he thinks go past what is proper, my Noble Friend will consider them.

ATLANTIC CHARTER

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether, in the further clarification of the Atlantic Charter in discussions with the President of the U.S.A., he will press for the reaffirmation in the interest of a more enduring peace, that the guid-

ing principle respecting the future transference or resettlement of peoples will not be military conquest or aggression, but moral right and democratic choice and for a more specific declaration as to how postwar economic reconstruction is to be implemented to the benefit of the peoples of all nations.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I have at present nothing to add to the reply I gave on 22nd March to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson).

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable disquiet still exists regarding what is felt to be the modification of the excellent principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter; and will he not take an early opportunity of removing that impression, so that faith may be restored in its principles?

The Prime Minister: I am always thinking about it, but there are others to be considered as well as His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that mean that they may be modified to suit other people?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to say much about it at the present time; I think it might lead us into more difficulties. As I have said, the Atlantic Charter and its principles remain our dominant aim and purpose.

YUGOSLAVIA

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the B.B.C. broadcast during the nine o'clock news on Monday regarding the activities of the partisan leader Tito, he will cause an objective statement to be issued clarifying the attitude of the Government and the United Nations towards General Mihailovitch and Marshal Tito, respectively.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the very full statement I made about this on 22nd February last.

Sir T. Moore: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in the country are both perplexed and confused with the conflicting accounts circulated about the activities of these two leaders; and would it not be wise to give them some account of the Government's views on this point?

The Prime Minister: We are in constant contact, both with Marshal Tito and the Royal Yugoslav Government, and our aim is extremely simple. We want to get as many as possible formed up together, in good agreement, in order to drive the cruel invaders from their native soil.

BRITISH AND GERMAN TANKS

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause to be brought to the yard of this House a German Mk. VI Tiger tank and a British A22, so that Members may see for themselves the relative merits of these two weapons.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister prepared to say why?

The Prime Minister: I think the trouble and expense involved, though not very great, is still more than is justified to satisfy the spiteful curiosity of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister not aware that great interest has been aroused in this matter in this House; and, if he cannot see his way to go to the comparatively trivial expense of bringing the machines here, will he arrange for a party of hon. 'Members to visit both machines together, on some suitable site in the country?

Mr. McGovern: Will the Prime Minister be prepared to take charge of a Churchill tank and allow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) to take charge of a Tiger tank?

The Prime Minister: I think it might be one way of settling the difference.

Mr. Stokes: May I have a reply to my question?

Sir A. Beit: Is there not the additional risk, if the request were granted, that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) might then attempt to act as technical instructor?

Mr. Stokes: In view of the interest aroused among large numbers of hon. Members, if the Prime Minister cannot see his way to bring the machines here, will he arrange for a suitable demonstration at a suitable spot in the country to which Members can go?

The Prime Minister: That really is not the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

BASIC ENGLISH (ATLANTIC CHARTER)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Prime Minister why, in the translation of paragraph 1 of the Atlantic Charter into Basic English (Command 6511), the word they is omitted though it is included in paragraph 8; why, in paragraph 2, the translation involves 22 words for nine words whereas it could have been expressed in nine words of Basic English; why, in paragraph 3, 33 words are used to express what could have been expressed in 21 words of Basic English; and in these circumstances will he arrange to publish a simple Basic English version of the Atlantic Charter.

The Prime MiniSter: I welcome my hon. Friend's interest. Let him please talk it over with the Basic English experts. Let us have the best version possible.

AGRICULTURE

Subsidies

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture, whether he will confer with the Minister of Food for the purpose of publishing an agreed statement setting out which of the existing subsidies to farmers can be ascribed for the benefit of the primary producers only and which of the remainder of the subsidies can be classified as beneficial to the consumer only.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I regret that it is not practicable to classify subsidies in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister not aware that, in a recent pronouncement he made at Tonbridge, he confused the whole issue; and will he not remember that, while he is trustee for the welfare of the agricultural community, it is not quite just that he should confuse the issue in this way?

Mr. Hudson: What I really said was that the subject was very confusing.

Labour Supply

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture, whether, in view of the estimate that this year the labour supply on farms is down by some 20 per cent. and that there is some 10 per cent. additional work to do as compared with previous years, he can now make some general statement of the plans which his Ministry have made to contend with the work and the problem of the shortage of labour.

Mr. Hudson: I am afraid I cannot accept the figures quoted by my hon. Friend. It will, nevertheless, again be necessary to obtain a great deal of help from sources outside the industry for harvesting and many other seasonal operations, and we shall have to rely on volunteers to supplement the regular labour force. I am sending my hon. Friend a note explaining the nature and scope of the principal schemes for recruiting volunteers.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister appreciate that there is still an acute shortage of labour on the farms?

Mr. Price: Can the Minister say if it is likely that Italian prisoners will be available in the coming harvest season, as in the past they have been very useful?

Artificial Insemination Centres

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many licences for artificial insemination centres have already been issued; and what steps are being taken to ensure that they are most usefully located.

Mr. Hudson: Five artificial insemination centres, including the two experimental centres at Cambridge and Reading, have so far been licensed. With regard to the latter part of the Question, a small Departmental Committee is considering the lines on which any future development, including the location of artificial insemination centres should be planned and controlled.

Mr. Bartlett: May I take it that the Minister will do his best to see that this system, which may be of benefit to agriculture, is under the very careful control of experts?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, that is why I have set up this Departmental Committee to control its effect.

Sir J. Lamb: Will the Minister take care that these methods do not come under commercial control?

Mr. Hudson: That is one of the objects in the minds of my Committee.

Land Utilisation Officers

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the duties of land utilisation officers; when they were first appointed; in what respect their duties differ from those of land commissioners; and whether they were appointed in collaboration with the war agricultural executive committee of the regions concerned.

Mr. Hudson: The rural land utilisation officers, who were appointed during 1942 and 1943, advise planning authorities in regard to the effect of their proposals on agriculture, in order to ensure that good agricultural land is not used for development if land of less productive capacity is available. They keep in close touch both with the county war agricultural executive committees and with my Land Commissioners. The Land Commissioners are heavily engaged in important duties relating to war-time food production and their duties do not overlap those of the rural land utilisation officers. The answer to the last part of the Question is," No, Sir."

Financial Position (Discussions)

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can make any statement upon the progress of the negotiations proceeding between his Department and the leaders of the farming industry.

Mr. Hudson: Meetings have been held between my Department and representatives of the National Farmers' Union to discuss the collection of agreed statistical data on the financial position of agriculture, and on the application of that data to problems of price fixing. I am quite satisfied with the progress made at these discussions which are being conducted in a cordial and helpful spirit.

Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the scope of the discussions will be retrospective, and will he take opportunities of coming down to the House and making a report on the result of the talks and discussions going on?

Mr. Hudson: I think, perhaps, we had better wait and see.

Agriculturists (Efficiency)

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture in what respect British agriculturists are inefficient as compared to the general standard of farming before the war.

Mr. Hudson: I have never seen it suggested that British agriculturists are In- efficient as compared with the general standard of farming before the war. The efficiency of the industry has increased remarkably since the outbreak of war, but that does not mean that in agriculture as in other industries there is not still room for improvement.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentle- man aware that this is the effect of the speech which the Minister made at Tonbridge, and will he not agree with me that the agriculturists and farmers of this country have made an efficient job of food production for the war effort?

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, will take the trouble to read exactly what I said, and not a few sentences taken out of the con- text.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it not a fact that the Minister was misreported in many quarters?

Mr. Hudson: I do not think it is fair to the Press to say I was misreported, but certain sentences were taken out of their context.

I.L.O. CONFERENCE, UNITED STATES

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government delegate to the forthcoming I.L.O. Conference will be authorised to support the recommendations on Minimum Standards of Social Policy in Dependent Territories which are to be submitted to the conference by the governing body of the I.L.O.

Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. and gallant Friend would refer the hon. Member to the reply which he gave on 15th March to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), to which he has nothing to add.

ASIAN SPIDER BEETLES

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Food what reports he has received of the appearance in this country of Asian spider beetles.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): None, Sir.

Mr. Bartlett: Will the Minister arrange that, if we cannot have any tanks in the courtyard of the House, these insects may be on show there?

COASTAL DISTRICTS (BAN)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether visitors who have entered the coastal belt since his recent Orders were made, or who have made arrangements to do so before 1st April, will be allowed to remain in the belt after 1st April.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The authorities responsible for enforcing the Orders locally have been instructed to allow such visitors a reasonable period in which to make arrangements for their departure from the Area.

UNITED STATES FORCES, GREAT BRITAIN (CIVIL CLAIMS)

Sir H. Williams: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the prolonged negotiations which have taken place and the importance of an immediate announcement, he is now able to make a statement upon the question of civil claims against members of the United States Forces in this country.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am very glad to be able to announce a settlement of this problem. Since this is a very complicated matter, I will, with permission, circulate a full statement of the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would, however, mention two points, which apply equally to future and outstanding claims; first, that the basis of the solution we have reached is the assumption by His Majesty's Government of general responsibility for making all necessary payments in settlement of the claims in question as a


matter of reciprocal aid and, secondly, that claimants will have as effective recourse to the Courts of this country as they have where British service personnel are involved. I believe that this is a satisfactory solution, and I am confident that it will remove the principal difficulties which have hitherto been experienced in the settlement of these claims. I trust that when they have informed themselves of the details, hon. Members will share this view.

Sir H. Williams: In congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I ask this one question? Does the term "outstanding claims" include claims where there has been in the past an unsatisfactory settlement because those concerned would not settle on satisfactory terms? Will there be any chance of re-opening unsatisfactory claims?

Mr. Eden: I would not like to pledge myself to that. That is one of the difficult points. I think my hon. Friend is right, but I would rather that he looked at the document itself.

Colonel Greenwell: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the arrangement entered into will cover cases of accident to British subjects who have been stationed in Iceland?

Mr. Eden: It is reciprocal aid and, therefore, of course, it would cover British subjects in the United States, for instance, because the United States will give us the same conditions as we are giving them in reciprocal aid. But I would like to have notice about Iceland, as I am not sure.

Mr. Bowles: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the War Claims Commission or the Army will deal with these claims on behalf of His Majesty's Government before they go to the court?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, that is the intention. Hon. Gentlemen will see it set out in the statement. These claims will be dealt with in part by them and in part by the United States.

Captain Duncan: In view of the satisfactory arrangement with America, will my right hon. Friend re-open negotiations with Canada and make a similar arrangement?

Mr. Eden: That is not a matter for me.

Following is the statement:

Civil Claims in Tort Arising Against Members of the United States Forces m the United Kingdom.

As the House is aware, "training and manoeuvre" claims (arising for the most part out of damage to crops, etc.) and claims arising from damage caused by aircraft crashes have for some time been settled by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the United States Government as a matter of reciprocal aid. Arrangements, including Collision Agreements, were originally made with the United States authorities in this country for the settlement of other claims arising from, torts committed by members of the United States Forces, but these arrangements later proved incompatible with the United States law and practice, and accordingly lapsed in the autumn of 1943. Although in consequence some claims have been delayed, the United States Claims Commissions have since settled large numbers to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. These Commissions, which are governed by United States law and practice, were not, however, authorised to treat judgements of the United Kingdom courts as binding upon them and were, moreover, subject to a financial limit of 5,000 dollars. While, as has been explained, a large number of claims were settled satisfactorily, it became clear, having regard to the limits imposed by law upon the United States Commissions, that other arrangements were necessary. Accordingly, with the co-operation of the United States Government, a settlement has now been reached in regard to claims arising out of:—

(a) traffic accidents;
(b) accidental shootings;
(c) accidental explosions;
(d) loss of or damage to chattels in requisitioned premises occupied by United States Forces under arrangements made with Departments of His Majesty's Government;
(e) certain other incidents (e.g., practice gunfire, fires in billets, etc.) where His Majesty's Government would in certain circumstances accept responsibility had members of His Majesty's Forces been involved.

Claims in these classes against members of the United States Forces will be settled upon the following lines:

Claims Arising from Torts Committed on or after the 20th March, 1944, by Members of the United States Forces on Duty.

His Majesty's Government will take over and settle all such claims as a matter of reciprocal aid. These claims will be dealt with by the British Claims Commission in exactly the same way as they would be if they had arisen against members of His Majesty's Forces in the United Kingdom. British law and practice will apply, and any claimants who may be dissatisfied with an award will be able to sue the defendant in the same manner as if he were a member of His Majesty's Forces, any judgement so obtained being satisfied by His Majesty's Government in the same manner as judgements obtained in comparable circumstances against British Service personnel.

Claims Arising from Torts Committed before the 10th March, 1944, by Members of the United States Forces on Duty.

It is understood that there is a considerable number of such claims outstanding against members of the United States Forces. The British Claims Commission could not assume responsibility for the settlement of this accumulation without serious prejudice to its present work of settling claims against members of His Majesty's Forces and to the settlement of future claims against members of the United States Forces for which it will now be responsible. With the exception of claims for more than 5,000 dollars which will at once be taken over by the British Commission, the United States Claims Commissions will therefore continue to investigate and settle all claims in this class, consulting the British Commission in order to ensure uniformity of treatment of these outstanding claims with the current claims which are to be taken over immediately by the latter Commission. His Majesty's Government will, however, undertake responsibility for making as a matter of reciprocal aid all necessary payments, including the payment of any court judgements. This arrangement will make possible the reinstatement of the Collision Agreements and will greatly facilitate the rapid disposal of these claims.

The above arrangements will not apply to claims arising from torts committed by members of the United States Forces while off duty. The United States Commissions will, however, continue to deal with such claims as at present and to make awards in appropriate cases.

The arrangements described in the preceding paragraphs will apply only in the United Kingdom. The United States Government have given the fullest assurance of their cooperation in these arrangements and have agreed to a number of detailed conditions which will enable them to operate satisfactorily. They have further undertaken to continue to take strict disciplinary measures against any members of their Forces who are found to be at fault in incidents which give rise to these claims and to grant reciprocal facilities for the settlement under lend-lease of similar claims arising against members of the United Kingdom Forces.

PERSECUTION OF JEWS (GERMANY AND SATELLITE COUNTRIES)

Mr. Silverman: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent enemy occupation of Hungary and the rapid march of events in the Balkans, he has any statement to make with reference to the urgent and immediate peril which now threatens Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution in those countries.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will have taken note of the statement

made on 24th March by President Roosevelt on the subject of his Question, and of the fact that His Majesty's Government at once wholeheartedly associated themselves with the United States Government in this matter. Further action is now under discussion between the United States Government and His Majesty's Government and I wish now to take this opportunity of making, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration: Evidence continues to reach His Majesty's Government and Allied Governments, that the Nazi policy of extermination has not been 'halted. The persecution of the Jews has in particular been of unexampled horror and intensity. On this His Majesty's Government in common with their Allies, now that the hour of Germany's defeat grows ever nearer and more certain, can only repeat their detestation of Germany's crimes and their detenrnination that all those guilty of them shall be brought to justice. But apart from direct guilt there is still indirect participation in crime. Satellite Governments who expel citizens to destinations named by Berlin must know that such actions are tantamount to assisting in inhuman persecution or slaughter. This will not be forgotten when the inevitable defeat of the arch-enemy of Europe comes about.
Happily there are individuals and even official authorities among the satellites who have resisted the evil German example and have shown toleration and mercy. These things are known to the Allies, and in the hope of encouraging such good deeds and increasing their number His Majesty's Government are concerned to make it clear that those who have followed the right path will also not be forgotten in the day of final reckoning. The time of respite is short, but there is still opportunity for the merciful to multiply their acts of humanity, for the guilty to try to make amends for their deeds of shame by releasing their victims and making, so far as is possible, restitution to them. His Majesty's Government are confident that they are expressing the sentiments of all the Allied Governments in calling upon the countries allied with or subject to Germany to join in preventing further persecution and co-operate in protecting and saving the innocent. His Majesty's Government, for their part, are firmly resolved to continue, in co-opera-


tion with all Governments and private authorities concerned, to rescue and maintain so far as lies in their power all those menaced by the Nazi terror.

Mr. Silverman: May I, while thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his full and extremely effective reply, add that it makes, in my view, supplementary questions unnecessary?

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the very important statement he has made is given the widest publicity in all enemy and enemy occupied countries, and among their satellites, and not least among the Slovaks, whose attitude has been extremely unsatisfactory, so that the message may be read by the people and not only by the Governments, possibly by leaflet as well as by radio?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hammersley: May I ask my right hon. Friend, arising out of that very satisfactory reply, whether His Majesty's Government will afford every facility to persecuted Jews to enter Palestine within the limit of the existing quota, and will everything be done to assist in that direction?

Mr. Eden: I think, if I understand my hon. Friend aright, that has always been the position, but perhaps he will be good enough to put down a Question.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very great importance of this statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not see that an example is set by vigorous action against anti Semites in this country?

Mr. Mack: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, which has given much relief to hon. Members on all sides of the House, will he bear in mind that, whilst appreciating the action taken up to now by His Majesty's Government, a more practical and more effective method would be to facilitate as many of these unfortunate people getting into Palestine as possible? May I ask him to bear in mind that a number of those persecuted people to whom he refers are now interned in Mauritius and cannot get there?

Mr. Eden: I do not think my hon. Friend is correct. The difficulty in respect to Palestine is not that there are no visas outstanding—there are—but that these un-

happy people have not been able to get out of the countries where they are persecuted. I certainly do not think this country has any reason to reproach itself.

Mr. Mack: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that about 1,400 of those unfortunate people who did succeed in getting into Palestine were turned out?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the next series of Sittings?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for the next series of Sittings will be as follows:
First and Second Sitting Days—Further progress will be made in Committee on the Education Bill. It is hoped that it will still be found possible to conclude the Committee stage before the Easter Adjournment.
Third' Sitting Day—Adjournment for the Easter Recess.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I now say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on the first Sitting Day after 23rd April. I will make a later statement as to the proposed arrangements on that day.
As regards Business to-day, it may be the general desire of the House to take a decision on Clause 82 of the Education Bill at a fairly reasonable hour. If that be the case, I want to explain, Mr. Speaker, that I propose to move the suspension of the Rule only so that we may make further progress with the remaining Clauses of the Education Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: On future Business, may I now have a firm reply from my right hon. Friend as to when he proposes to allow us to have a Debate on Imperial policy; and will he bear in mind that it is very desirable that it should not be too long delayed?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, it is my hope to arrange for two days in the first series of Sittings after Easter.

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask two questions of the Leader of the House? The first is when does he contemplate taking


the remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill assuming that we do not complete it in this series of Sittings? The second is, will the Government after the Easter Recess provide us with a day for the discussion of the Motion on Equal Pay which stands in my name and that of about 160 Members of this House?

[That this House is in favour of the immediate application of the principle of equal pay as between men and women employed in those classes of the Civil Service where recruitment is open to men and women alike through the same examination, and/or where the men and women members of the class are liable for identical duties.]

Mr. Eden: As regards the first question, I hope we may make good progress with the Bill on the next Sitting Day. Our Business is now a little awry, and I shall have to think again if we have not done so. As regards the second question, I cannot make any statement about that at present.

Captain Cobb: May I ask whether there is any likelihood of having in the fairly near future a Debate on Foreign Affairs, confined solely to Foreign Affairs and not mixed up with the war situation?

Mr. Eden: I certainly think that some time fairly soon after we resume, an opportunity will need to be created. As regards the limits of the Debate, I would not like to pronounce definitively, because these matters have a habit of overlapping.

Mr. Maxton: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was suspending the Rule to-day merely as a precautionary measure? Could he give us any indication as to what time he has in mind for reporting Progress? Without such information the whipping of a Party is very difficult.

Mr. Eden: I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept my sympathy in his difficulty. It is not our intention to ask the House to sit late.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Following on what was said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), and in view of recent events, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of affording the House an early opportunity of discussing, on its merits, the question of equal pay?

Mr. Eden: I did say just now, quite definitely that for reasons which I thought the House would probably appreciate, I am not prepared to make any statement on that subject at present.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when the Government will be in a position to inform the House of the conclusions reached on the deliberations which have taken place between Members of the War Cabinet and private Members of the House, on the question of Service pay and allowances?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I cannot say that at this moment.

Sir H. Williams: In connection with a Debate on Empire affairs, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of breaking it into two parts, one dealing with political and the other with economic matters?

Mr. Eden: I think that would be largely a matter for the Chair. As I explained, the Government desire to give hon. Members the widest opportunity to express their own views. The Government themselves will not have any far-reaching statement to make, for obvious reasons, since they are going to enter into consultations themselves.

Mr. Buchanan: In regard to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), since these negotiations have been carried on for several weeks, and seem likely to continue until after Easter, could the right hon. Gentleman not make a statement to the House informing those who are not on the committee whether the negotiations between the Committee and the Government are continuing? Would he consider, at least when we return after Easter, giving us the Government's conclusion on anything that is decided?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The hon. Members who were good enough to meet the Ministers have stated their views, and that part of the business is pretty well concluded. It remains for the Government to make their statement. I cannot say now when they will be able to do that but, naturally, we do not want to waste time and I hope it will not be long after we meet again after Easter.

Sir Richard Acland: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what his ideas are about Business on the next Sitting Day, because I am a little in doubt?

Mr. Eden: As far as I can recollect, I said that on the next Sitting Day we shall go in to Secret Session on the hours of the Sittings of the House, and after that the House will take the remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Mr. Lipson: In regard to the decision about taking Clause 82 of the Education Bill to-day, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the fact that this is putting certain hon. Members in a difficult position? Will he see that no difficulty is put in the way of those hon. Members who wish to give some justification for their vote?

Mr. Granville: Will the Leader of the House clarify what he said to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)? Does he mean that a decision will be taken on Clause 82 at a late hour? Can he give any indication of the time at which he hopes to get a decision on Clause 82?

Mr. Eden: I said earlier that I thought the feeling of the House was that they would like to take a decision early on Clause 82.

Hon. Members: Now.

Mr. Eden: If I may be allowed to say so, it is not for the House but for the Chair to decide the exact time.

Commander King-Hall: May I ask for guidance on the question of whether it is permissible to use publicly outside the House the dates mentioned by the Leader of the House, such as the Budget date? Is it permissible for the Press to publish that date?

Mr. Eden: I shall have something to say about those matters on the next Sitting Day.

Mr. Bowles: On the Business for the next series of Sittings, may I have an assurance from the Leader of the House that, whatever happens, there will not be another "Salute the Government Week"?

Mr. Eden: That will depend upon the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Leader of the House whether in view of

the feeling that has been expressed in the Army and the country on the subject of pay and allowances he will not arrange for a statement to be made immediately we meet after Easter. Surely during Easter the Government can make up their minds.

Mr. Eden: All I can say is that the Government are not going to delay the matter, but it is a complicated matter and we have a good many burdens on our shoulders just now. I do not want to pledge myself definitely, but we will do it as soon as we can.

Mr. Granville: On a point of Order. Will an ordinary back bencher be in Order if, at an early stage of the discussion upon Clause 82, he submits a Motion "That the Question be now put"?

Mr. Speaker: No: I do not see how that is possible seeing that I am not in the Chair when discussion in Committee takes place.

BILL REPORTED

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL,

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on the Education Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 28th March].

CLAUSE 82.—(Remuneration of teachers.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

The Chairman: The Committee may wish for some indication as to the scope of the Debate, and it may perhaps be a help if I say that I have not selected any further Amendments to Clause 82 and that I propose to put the Question forth-With "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." We are, of course, still on the Committee stage of the Education Bill and must conform to the normal rules of procedure in Committee. A Debate on the Motion "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" must, therefore, be confined to the Clause as amended. It cannot extend to the circumstances under which the Amendment was made, nor can it review the proceedings on the Clause in detail. The Chair will endeavour to give the most liberal interpretation of that Rule that is possible, particularly as there has only been one Amendment to the Clause, but it would not be within the Rules of Order, on such a Motion, to go into the details of any constitutional issue involved or into the war effort generallly, some of which issues were, incidentally, fairly fully debated yesterday on, a Motion for the Adjournment. I hope we may now proceed.

Mr. A. Bevan: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, in reply to a question by me yesterday, expressed the opinion that a fairly wide Debate would be allowed on this Motion "That the Clause stand part"—

Mr. Hammersley (Willesden, East): On a point of Order.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) is addressing a question to the Chair.

Mr. Hammersley: I wish to raise a point of Order.

Mr. Bevan: The Prime Minister said yesterday:
As an old Member of the House I should have thought that it was, obviously, an issue which required the widest latitude that the Chair felt inclined to give, when the Chair would be supported, as it certainly would be, by the general sense of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 5944, col. 1435, Vol. 398.]
From those words, it would appear that the Prime Minister expected that as this Motion was to be a question of confidence a fairly wide Debate would be permitted. It is now clear, from what you have said, Major Milner, that we shall not be able to discuss any of the implications of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday. Will the Prime Minister, therefore, inform the Committee whether the Government propose to adopt any other procedure for the purpose of ascertaining the confidence of the House in it?

The Chairman: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Chair must act on the established Rules of procedure interpretated as liberally as possible. I however fully appreciate the position, and there is a method whereby the range of Debate may be enlarged if the Committee so wish. It would be possible, for example, to move that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and, in that event, there would be rather wider scope. May I say that, if any hon. Member contemplates moving such a Motion, even there there are certain limits. The Committee will be aware that Standing Order 21 restricts Debate in the matter of a dilatory Motion, such as to report Progress, "to the matter of such Motion." The purpose of moving such a Motion is to avoid or postpone immediate decision on a question. If it is desired to widen the scope of the Debate in this instance, then it would be the object of such a Motion to avoid a decision or to postpone it on the particular Motion "That Clause 82, as amended, stand part of the Bill." Such a Motion would enable an hon. Member, for example, to give reasons why he desires to avoid a decision on the Clause, but his reasons must be relevant to the Question "That the Clause stand part." For example, if I understand the point that

the hon. Member has in mind, and if such a Motion were the subject of discussion, a Member would be entitled to argue that under the Rules of Debate he could not, on the Clause itself, explain why his support of the Government's general policy outweighed his opposition to their particular policy with regard to the Clause as amended. He could, however, give that as a reason for reporting Progress so as to avoid a decision on the Clause, but he would not be able to give in any detail his reasons for so supporting the general policy of the Government or for deploring the untimeliness of destroying confidence in the Government, nor could he discuss in detail the constitutional relations between the Government and the House of Commons. That might be part of his reasons for wishing to avoid a decision on the Clause, but would quite obviously be far outside and irrelevant to the Clause itself. If it were the wish of the Committee to move such a Motion I would accept it.

Mr. Maxton: May I put it to you., Major Milner, that the Committee is entitled to something better from the Government than merely an opportunity of discussion on the Clause, or to report Progress. Yesterday the Prime Minister came down to the House and challenged the House very strongly, and made it a matter of general confidence in the Government, and I think he himself and the Leader of the House are entitled to put the Committee into a position where all the issues—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is debating the matter, and there is no Question before the Committee at the moment. Unless such a Question is proposèd I must at once put the Question, "That Clause 82, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Maxton: rose—

The Chairman: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?

Mr. Maxton: I was on a point of Order and you rose to interrupt me. I gave way, as it was my duty to do, but when you resumed your seat I was endeavouring to conclude the sentence. I am making an appeal.

The Chairman: But there is no Question before the Committee. Is it a point of Order?

Mr. Maxton: I have been long enough in the House, and you, Major Milner, have been here long enough, to know that in these circumstances it is advisable not to force the Rules very definitely. I am asking the Government to do what I think the Committee have a right to demand, and that is that they shall put the Debate on to a position which gives the Committee a fair chance. I am asking for a response from the Leader of the House.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: When you announced the procedure to-day, Major Milner, I think you led the Committee to understand that the Debate on reporting Progress would be wider than the Debate upon the Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill". My reading of Erskine May, page 308, is that the matter of reporting Progress must be confined to the matter of such Motion, and I should humbly suggest that it would even be narrower than the Debate on the Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

The Chairman: The Committee will appreciate that it is not permissible to argue the Rulings of the Chair. I have considered the matter very fully, and in fact such a Motion to report Progress as I have indicated would, to some extent, widen the Debate if it is desired to do so.

Mr. Buchanan: May I put a point to you, Major Milner, asking for your guidance? You have been good enough to make a statement in definite terms, for which I think we are thankful, but we are in a dilemma. I put it to you that if someone moves to report Progress and the Government accept that Motion then there can be thrown open an opportunity to discuss the issues that are involved to-day. I would suggest that if we have any discussion, that might be found by the Government to be a reasonable way out of the difficulty.

Major Woolley: If there is a Motion to report Progress, may I ask if there is any danger of the House losing the remainder of the day's Business?

The Chairman: That lies in the hands of the Committee. It is not for me to judge as to the time that the Committee may desire to spend on the subject of the Motion.

Mr. A. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I move this in order to give the Government an opportunity to make a start on the Business arising out of the Ruling which you, Major Milner, have given. Yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement to the House—

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. Should not the Question be now put?

The Chairman: The Question will be put at the end of the hon. Member's speech, when those who want to speak on the Motion will have the opportunity of doing so and perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to leave the conduct of the Committee's proceedings to the Chair.

Mr. Bevan: It was very clear to many of us yesterday, that the Ruling now given would be the Ruling that you, Major Milner, would be compelled to give, but the Government were able to avoid answering by saying that they would not anticipate the Ruling from the Chair. Now the Committee is in possession of a Ruling from the Chair, and the Chair has ruled that it would not be competent for anyone in the course of this Debate to argue any of the reasons why we are having a Debate at all. That is the position now before the Committee, and it is perfectly clear that after the Debate proceeds the whole of it is bound to be confined to the merits of the Clause itself. As the arguments put forward will be reported in the Press and over the radio, the Division which will subsequently take place will appear to people outside to be a Division on the merits of the Debate. Therefore, hon. Members who will go into the Lobby for the purpose of supporting the Government generally will be made to appear, by the nature of the Debate under the Ruling, to be against the principle to which they themselves had agreed.
I beg to submit that the embarrassment which the Committee is obviously in at the moment is a direct consequence of the behaviour of the Government. I warned the House twice yesterday about this. There are very many Members here to-day who were not attending their


business yesterday, and who have been brought to the House of Commons to vote like sheep for the Government. [Interruption.] We are not barking, we are battling—

The Chairman: Hon. Members will please address themselves to the Chair.

Mr. Bevan: It is therefore clear that the Government have sought on this occasion to force a Division, a course which it will not only be very difficult for the country to understand but which is a source of embarrassment to the Committee itself, because even hon. Members who interrupted me are anxious unequivocally to state their confidence in the Government. If that be the case, then there should be a Motion of Confidence before the Committee; and not a Motion on an issue that has nothing at all to do with confidence. Would it not, therefore, be the right thing to allow the Committee to go on dealing with the Education Bill in the normal way and let the Government seek a more favourable instrument for the purpose of ascertaining whether the House has confidence in it or not? That would be satisfactory to the House and intelligible to the country.
I am bound to say that the mood displayed by several hon. Members on this matter will make it fairly certain that they will not have a Division for many hours, because, in fact, when we come to discuss the Clause in Committee there will be very many Members who will want to address themselves to the merits of the Clause itself. But hon. Members who interrupted me will not be in the Committee to discuss the Clause, they will be elsewhere, but will be here for the purpose of giving a vote on the Clause which they themselves do not want to discuss. I do not want to carry on the argument on this matter too far, but I do think the Committee is entitled to receive from the Government more intelligent treatment than we have so far had from them.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Government are not prepared to accept this Motion. We wish to go on with the Bill. The hon. Gentleman complained that the Government ought to choose some better method of obtaining a decision from the House.

When the Government have been defeated, the Government are at least entitled to express their own views in the matter and how they wish to proceed with Business. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should report Progress. We wish to go on with the Bill and I invite the Committee to do so.

Mr. Maxton: If that is the intention of the Government, nothing we can say here can alter it. I, myself, do not propose to be obstructive on the matter. I imagine I have a very great deal in common with hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. I want progress with the Education Bill. I want an early opportunity of voting that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Hon. Members opposite want an early opportunity of voting that it shall not stand part of the Bill, but our desire for an early decision on the matter is a common one. The hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite also want an opportunity of declaring their unbounded confidence in the Government and I want the opportunity, as on other occasions, of showing that I have not that confidence.
These are all things which Members want, for they want to do their job properly. We all want these three things, but in different Lobbies. The Government come to us and say: "We are not going to allow you to do anything." [An HON. MEMBER: "Dictatorship"] I have been in opposition all the time and I think I have played the game. I have never been obstructive at any stage, and I think what I am saying is true of all critical elements in the House of Commons. I think there is something more than what the Leader of the House said to us just now. I do not know whether there could be any extended Debate on the general question if we decided to have that general Debate, but I ask, if this is possible, for the Motion to report Progress to be carried. Then the Speaker would come back into the Chair and the House would discuss for a long or a short period, according to its desires, the general question of confidence in the Government. The House would vote on that Motion and then resume proceedings in Committee on the Education Bill.
That seems to be a fair and decent way. If the Government are not prepared to come any distance to meet the Committee


in that matter then I, as one Member, feel that we are being very badly treated and that the House is not being allowed to express its will in the free, precise way that the House of Commons wants to express it.

Mr. Lipson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that there are many hon. Members who find themselves in an embarrassing position. It is no good pretending that it is not so If there are hon. Members present who can, without any hesitation and without any prick of conscience, vote on a Motion to-day which reverses the vote they gave two days ago, I, at least, am not one of them. I want to say that I am very concerned at the suggestion made in some quarters of the Committee that there should necessarily be an early decision on this matter, because we have a responsibility to Parliament and also to our constituents, and we ought to be given the opportunity to explain in this Committee, so that our constituents may know why we have taken up this extraordinary position, many of our constituents finding it difficult to do so. I do hope that proper regard will be paid to the views of the minorities in this House. It has always been a great tradition in this House that minority opinions should be respected, and, therefore, I want to urge that a full opportunity should be given for discussion on the merits of the Clause and the reason why one has to vote against the Clause of which one verily approves.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I do not desire to prevent the Committee from coming to an early decision on the Vote of Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government, but I do want to avail myself of the opportunity, Major Milner, which you indicated from the Chair of speaking on this Motion. I do not agree with the hon. Member who spoke of the embarrassment of Members who voted in the Division on Tuesday last. Indeed, since this Vote of Confidence has been put forward we can now see that it is the Government who are embarrassed and not the Members who voted against it. Hon. Members who say that the vote which took place two days ago has done harm in the country might surely reflect that the mixing up of domestic policies and military issues and

then having a Vote of Confidence on a Clause standing part of an Education Bill, will do far more harm to the prestige of Parliament in the country than anything else.
I wish to make my position perfectly clear, I cast my vote the other day because I believed that the principle of equal pay was the right one, and I find it difficult to understand why it should be inappropriate upon a Bill which has to do with education—

Sir C. MacAndrew: On a point of Order. The Motion before the Committee, I understand, is to report Progress, and I also understand that on such a Motion the matter is very closely confined. In fact, as I understand it, the Motion is the only thing we can discuss.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is giving his reasons as he is entitled to do for not wishing to come to a decision on the original Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. Similarly, those who desire a decision to be taken on that Clause are entitled to give their reasons.

Sir A. Southby: Thank you, Major Milner. I want to state why we should report Progress before we come to this decision. When I was interrupted, I was about to say that the issue to be decided will be taken on the Motion that the Clause should stand part of the Bill but will not really have anything to do with that Clause. The issue will be whether we have confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government or not. That is what we shall be telling the world, and before we embark on the Debate we owe it to ourselves and to our constituents to make it perfectly clear that that is what we shall be voting upon when the Question is put. I voted as I did the other day because I believe in the broad principle of equal pay for equal work and I also believe that the question of equal pay is something which, inevitably, will have to come. I find it difficult to understand why it should be inappropriate to discuss the question of equal payment for teachers during a debate on an Education Bill, which will have a profound effect on this country after the war. I accept the Government's point of view that to raise the question then raised wider issues, and that that is why they consider it necessary now to have a Vote


of Confidence. But I am bound to protest at the Vote of Confidence being taken on the Motion that the Clause should stand part of the Bill. It cannot be understood in the country. We are now on the eve of very great events and everybody wishes to give the Prime Minister and the Government every possible support.

The Chairman: Quite clearly, under this Motion the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss the general conduct of the war.

Sir A. Southby: I am much obliged. It is obvious how difficult it is for the House of Commons to exercise its proper function under these circumstances. This is where we get through having a Vote of Confidence—which is a clear cut issue—on a piece of domestic legislation. What the Prime Minister said yesterday meant, in fact, that every piece of domestic legislation which we shall discuss in this House or in Committee may, in fact, be the subject of a Vote of Confidence. While we are fighting this war we are, at the same time, planning ahead. This Education Bill is a major piece of planning which will affect the people of this country after the war. Surely Members have the right to discuss a Bill on its merits without being accused of any lack of confidence in the prosecution of the military part of the war by the Prime Minister. I do not abate one jot or tittle of my belief that ultimately equal pay for men and women doing equal work, equally well, and with equal qualifications, is something which will have to come. On the clear understanding that the present issue is purely one of confidence in the Prime Minister's direction of the war, I shall vote on this occasion for the Government.

Mr. W. J. brown: If this Motion to report Progress goes to a division I shall feel obliged to vote for it. I think that Members, individually, are being put in an impossible position by the conjunction of what happened yesterday and what is happening to-day. Members individually, and the House as a whole, are being put in an impossible situation. Let me deal with both aspects. There is a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by me and about 160 Members, in favour of the principle of equal pay. In order to demonstrate confidence in the

Government I shall be required later today, although my name is put to that Motion, to go into the Lobby and vote against equal pay for teachers. That puts me, personally, into an intolerable position. The House as a whole is also being put in an intolerable position. The reasons given to us yesterday by the Government for their decision to move the deletion of Clause 82 were two-fold. One of their objects was an educational object—the restoring of the position as it was before the Amendment was passed. The other reason was a broad political reason—that they wanted to have a demonstration of confidence in the Government. If we are to proceed on those lines I should like to be able to discuss whether this new technique of government is appropriate in the House of Commons. I should like to be able to discuss what the effect of this will be on the relations between the Executive and Parliament. I should like to be able to discuss what the effect of this will be on the standing of Parliament in the country. But none of these things —which are all relevant to what the Government have done—can be discussed in the situation into which we have been put. I submit that the Government ought not to put their friends or critics in the position in which we find ourselves today. In these circumstances, therefore, if the Motion goes to a division, I shall vote for it.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: The Prime Minister has left no possible course open to us other than to support him in this Vote of Confidence. I shall vote against the Clause embodying my own Amendment, not because my views have changed on equal pay, but because more vital issues have been superimposed upon it. In this great—

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. May I respectfully submit, Major Milner, that the hon. Lady's statement would be relevant to a discussion on the Clause but is entirely irrelevant on the Motion to report Progress?

The Chairman: I think the hon. Lady is in Order, but she must not go into detail on the matter of vital issues.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: I was about to say that in this great democracy of ours, convention, for once, seems to have overruled common sense. I believe in the


Clause as it stands, but I shall vote against it, to show my measureless confidence in the Prime Minister now, in view of the stupendous days that lie ahead.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: I think the Government were completely right the other day in the course they took and I was glad to be able to support them. Putting the matter of equal pay into the Education Bill seemed to me to be entirely wrong. That does not mean that I do not believe equal pay to be right; I believe it is, and I believe it is bound to come. But I think the Government were profoundly right in objecting to its being brought into the Education Bill in the way it was brought in. I regret very much, however, the course which the Government have subsequently followed. I believe it would have been more in keeping with the traditions of Parliament if the Government had introduced a Motion, on which the whole House would have been able to show their unbounded support for the Government in the war effort on a Vote of Confidence, instead of putting the House into the position in which it is in to-day, in which Members have to eat their own words and vote against themselves and the Measure which they have supported. However, the Government have so decided, and there is no other course open but to take a decision on this matter. I suggest it would be more dignified in these circumstances—much as I regret the Government's action in this particular matter—to come to a decision and get back to work and complete the Bill, which every section in the House desires to see completed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I rise for only two minutes to support the view that we should come to an early decision. It is true that we shall be speaking about one subject to-day and voting about another. That is the procedure which is liable to be misunderstood in the country but it is well understood in Parliament. It happens every Session. There is one right hon. Member who remembers a discussion in 1895 about cordite, which involved the fate of the last Liberal Government of that century. This sort of thing has happened repeatedly since. Here we are under no illusions about this, and the argument I wish to give in support of an early decision is more powerful than any I could give myself, because it comes from

the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir). I have the feeling that we have been here before, because on 6th April, 1936, after the Government had been similarly defeated on a question of equal pay, and an issue of confidence was raised, the hon. Lady used these words, every one of which is relevant to-day:
I am sorry that it has been thought necessary to make the vote to-night a Vote of Confidence in the Government, but since it has been thought necessary I shall certainly vote for the Government, because no matter what my views may be in regard to equal pay I think it is of the utmost importance that the National Government should be in power at this serious period in our history. I hope, however, that the Government will consider again, seriously, the whole question which occasioned their defeat last Wednesday."—[Official Report, 6th April, 1936; col. 2477.Vol. 310.]

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. Is this quotation really in Order, Major Milner? Is it in Order to give all this in connection with a previous Vote of Confidence, in view of what you have ruled to-day?

The Chairman: The point of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) is not, at the moment, clear, but I imagine he is giving reasons for coming to a decision and not reporting Progress and so avoiding coming to a decision.

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps I may be allowed to complete my quotation:
—because I am convinced it was a real manifestation of the way that public opinion is moving in this country on the question of equal pay for equal work.
The argument which applied then, in what we now regard as the piping days of peace, to a bogus National Government, is very much stronger now, on the eve of great operations and when we have a real National Government. Therefore, I think that on this occasion we should show our general support of the Government.

Mr. Buchanan: Amen.

Captain Prescott: I want to detain the Committee only for a few minutes. The other day I voted for the Government and I would suggest to the Committee that we must to-day consider the circumstances in which that vote was taken. I would like to emphasise that the President of the Board of Education expressed again and again the view that the


Amendment which was proposed was a vital Amendment, and went to the root of the Clause and even of the Bill itself. He stated that the question of equal pay involved equal pay for civil servants throughout the country and said that if the Amendment were pressed, it might involve the fate of himself and even the Government.

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Motion to report Progress, or are we repeating the Debate we had previously?

The Chairman: We are discussing the Motion to report Progress and the hon. and gallant Member must not rediscuss the Debate of the other night except in general terms.

Captain Prescott: It is in view of what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, which in some respects impressed me, that I wish to address a few observations to the Committee. In considering this question one must bear in mind what happened when the Division took place on Tuesday. It was obvious that the Government considered the Amendment to be quite out of the question, and it was equally obvious that very large sections of hon. Members were determined to press the Amendment on the Government. They did so, and the Government were defeated. No one was more surprised or shocked than many who voted for it. What was the position of the Government in those circumstances? They have been defeated and they now say, "We wish to re-introduce the matter and reverse the decision previously reached." That is objected to by many, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) say, "It should not be done in that way. Table a Motion of Confidence and nearly the whole House will vote for it." One understands that argument, but surely there is very little logic in it. If it is correct, the result is that Members can defeat the Government and then expect the Government to say, "You have gone completely contrary to our wishes, you have beaten us; now pass a Motion of Confidence but, of course, leave what we have done exactly where it is." Surely there is very little logic in that.

Dr. Haden Guest: I can see no reason why the Debate should

be unduly curtailed. It involves matters of the greatest possible interest and the greatest constitutional importance, though they cannot be referred to. Of course, the Government are quite within their technical rights in bringing before the Committee a Motion in this form, bat there is serious doubt as to the wisdom of so doing, because it is inevitably bound to be misunderstood in the country. It will be understood not as a Vote of Confidence, but as an attempt by the executive to dragoon Parliament. I understand that, if a more careful explanation had been given at the time the matter was being discussed perhaps the Government might not have had to face this very serious difficulty. I do not feel the embarrassment to which certain hon. Members have referred. I see no reason why any Member of Parliament, following his conviction and his duty—words used by the Prime Minister yesterday—should feel embarrassed by whatever consequences outflow from them. I believe that under the Clause as originally drafted, it would have been possible for women teachers to get equal pay. It might have been brought before the Burnham Committee, and I am informed that the reason why it was not brought before the Burnham Committee was not that the National Union of Teachers did not wish it brought before them, but because the local authorities said that if it was brought before them, they would refuse to work the Burnham machinery.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's argument might be relevant to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" but not to the Motion now before the Committee.

Dr. Guest: I think the country and the forces who are about to engage in the tremendous operations which have been referred to would feel much easier if some other method of dealing with the situation were found by the Government. The Forces take a very great interest in what goes on in the House of Commons and I think they have a right to have matters put so that they can clearly understand what is going on. They will understand this Motion to report Progress as being a way of shelving the matter. They will not understand a vote which makes Members register to-day an opinion, the exact contrary of that which they registered yesterday. I am fortified in my belief


of the tremendous interest the Forces take in the matter by the fact that I visited the general headquarters of the British army at Arras just before Hitler's advance into France and I found that all ranks, from the headquarters staff to privates, were keenly discussing the political situation. I have no doubt whatever that they are keenly discussing the political situation now, and I do not think they will be able to understand what is going on. Those Members who are so embarrassed should look the facts in the face and consider that, if they discard their embarrassment and vote according to their convictions, they will fortify the Government by forcing a reconstruction which would in my view be a highly desirable thing.

Major Vyvyan Adams: Though I expect to be one of a great majority who will support the Government, I am at the moment one of a small minority, which does not wish to see this discussion curtailed, because I regard, the issue on which we are engaged as one of primary importance. I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he appreciates the degree of perplexity in which he has involved some who, like myself, are extremely anxious to support the Government. The Prime Minister said yesterday that this issue right up to the Report stage was going to be treated as a matter of confidence throughout, and I have come down to-day hoping I should be allowed to give my reasons for confidence in the Government pitted against any desire, on the part of myself or any other Member, for amending Clause 82. I regard that as an important privilege and right for any Member to discharge, and I am still not clear, even at this stage of the discussion, though I have paid the closest attention to what has gone before, whether I am entitled to do that. Apparently the subject-matter of the Debate has been narrowed to a needle's end and it seems that the only reasonable thing to do is to go on talking until one is stopped. The hon. Lady who, in a disorderly manner, displays her emotion below the Bar, need not be alarmed. I am not going to speak for long; all I mean is that I hope I shall not be stopped too early.
Whereas it is always difficult to speak in this honourable House, the Government have made it virtually impossible

for anyone to make a rational or a properly articulated speech. These are not the best circumstances in which to try to address oneself to an important issue, such as confidence in the Government at this stage of the war. The Government may not have handled this incident in the best possible way, but if we now go into the Lobby against them, we shall be doing the worst possible thing. Every one to whom I have spoken agrees that we are in a deplorable situation. I know no one who is not of that opinion But there, as far as I am aware, complete agreement ends.
I am not sure what line I should have taken had I been here on Tuesday. An hon. Member has mentioned a Debate that took place in 1936. On that same occasion, I voted against the then Government on this question of equal pay for equal work. I remember that that Government also then made it an issue of confidence. I, alone, I believe, on the second occasion, of those who were supposed officially to support the Government, again voted against the Government of that day. One can imagine, in the political circumstances of 1936, how uncomfortable a proceeding that was for me. But I am not going to vote against the Government to-night, chiefly because it is a different Government and the circumstances are different. For what it is worth, the Government, having made this matter a question of confidence, are going to have my support. At this moment there is no possible course open to us except that. I am aware of all the criticisms that may be made and charges against the Government—and there may be some truth in them—indifference to the will of Parliament, making nonsense of our Debates, proceedings and Divisions—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot go into those details on this occasion.

Major Adams: I am afraid I am already enmeshed in the kind of crisis which I anticipated when I began speaking. Whether or not criticisms of the Government's action to which I am not allowed to allude—even to refute—are valid, the situation is now quite changed. There is before the Committee the simple question: Is the war now at so delicate a stage and are the Government so valuable, that we are going to allow the present Administration to continue?


There is no other issue. I am not going to ask the country to replace the present Administration by the political chaos which would result from the resignation of the Prime Minister the split in the Coalition, and the seeking of the suffrages of the electors. We should do well to close our ranks. This will not be the last opportunity that we shall have of vindicating the sovereignity of Parliament against the power of the Executive.

Mr. Gallacher: This is the first time I have taken the opportunity of making a few remarks since Tuesday. While the Government in my opinion are taking a wrong attitude in not accepting the Motion to report Progress, I am also bound to say that much of the trouble has arisen because those of us who voted were not prepared to take responsibility for the votes that we gave. When they found that the decision had gone against the Government their attitude should not have been how to get out of it, but to take the responsibility of demanding, on the strength of the vote, a reconstruction of the Government for the carrying out of their obligations to the people and to the war effort generally. I will say this to the Leader of the House; he cannot avoid facing it and he knows that it is true. By refusing the Motion to report Progress and by taking the line the Government are taking, they will gather round them the major forces of the three parties in the House and there will be an expression of unity round the Government in the House, but that is not the important thing for the Government. The important thing for the Government is that, while they can see the possibility of unity in the House, they will find in the country a growing disintegration and disorganisation.
While this action of the Government will bring about an expression of unity in the House, will it lessen or increase the disunity and disintegration that exist in the country? It is all right for the Prime Minister to say that with the great events that lie before us the Government require to be fortified by a vote in this House, but it will not necessarily fortify him. If, however, Progress were reported and we were able to get a wider discussion, it might be possible as a result to get a greater measure of fortification for the Government in the country where it is

actually needed. Do the Government, with the most critical tasks ahead of them, view the situation in the country without any anxiety and without continual thought? It is a foregone conclusion that the Government will get an overwhelming vote to-day, but the necessity for drawing the people of the country together is more important than drawing Members of the House of Commons together. The importance of drawing the people of the country together demands that there should be a wider discussion so that the people can thoroughly understand what is taking place.

Colonel Arthur Evans: I completely fail to understand the charges which have been made against the Government to-day. The charge of putting the House and its Members in an embarrassing position, the charge that the Prime Minister in particular is attempting to dragoon the House of Commons according to his will, have not been substantiated by any evidence. I understand, of course, the motives of hon. Members who are anxious—

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his usual capacity, has made a point that the charges against the Government that they were dragooning the House have not been substantiated. Would I be in Order in replying to him by substantiating those charges? If so, I hope to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman and substantiate them.

The Chairman: No, it would not be possible, as I have indicated, to give reasons either for supporting or not supporting the charges against the Government.

Colonel Evans: I think that my hon. Friend who raised the point of Order will at least admit that charges have been made. We will leave their substantiation on one side. Members have been content to make those charges. What are their motives?

Mr. A. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member is now asking what are the motives of hon. Members. Is he to be entitled to discuss motives? Is he an alienist?

Colonel Evans: I think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) is anticipating my thoughts, and, as usual, anticipating them wrongly. There has been


extraordinary anxiety on the part of hon. Members on all sides to explain why they have cast their votes in a particular way on Tuesday last, and why they are going to cast their votes in an entirely opposite way to-day. One understands that anxiety, but the truth is that those hon. Gentlemen are not prepared to face the responsibility for casting their votes in the way they did. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg)—and I am sorry he is not in his place—charged the Government with blackmail. I agree that he, later, withdrew it, and spoke of undue pressure brought to bear on the House by the Government. I suggest that the shoe is on the opposite foot. The hon. Gentleman and the House know full well that this question of equalisation of pay as between the sexes has been and now is receiving the attention of the Government. Hon. Members have been at some pains to say that because we are on the eve of an invasion—and they could not develop that point because of the rules of Order—it was not an opportune time in which to raise this matter to-day. Why then was it raised on an Amendment to Clause 82 of the Education Bill?

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: There is a lot of confusion about this. It was just as legitimate to raise this question as to raise the question whether parried women teachers should be employed. That Amendment happened to be accepted. Therefore my hon. and gallant Friend must not think that we raised this question for any motive other than that it vitally affects education.

Mr. Colegate: That statement is a complete denial of what was deliberately stated on the Amendment.

The Chairman: We cannot discuss on this Motion the proceedings on the Bill.

Colonel Evans: Obviously I am not permitted to develop that point. I was tempted to do so owing to some remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) who made his own position clear. He left the Committee in no doubt. But I hope that there will be no continuation of that point. We were not discussing the question of confidence in the Government in the prosecution of the war on Tuesday last. It is clear that the House is practically of one mind on that issue. We were discussing the Education Bill. The President of the Board of Education

frankly told the Committee that he had neither the authority nor the desire to deal with the question of broad principle of equal pay as between men and women which affected not only his Department hut Government policy. Let us be quite clear that when the question of whether the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill is put, the Committee will be voting for one thing only, that is, whether, in their opinion, Clause 82 of the Education Bill is a fit and proper instrument to deal with the question of the equalisation of pay for men and women employed by the State and by local authorities.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that they will not be voting on that question? Every other speaker has made it plain that they will be voting not on the question of equal pay, but because they are compelled to vote in favour of a Vote of Confidence in the Government.

Sir Adam Maitland: Speaking as a private Member who is untramelled and unemcumbered by the responsibilities of office, and who is never likely to be in office, I should like to state the position as I see it. The Government have been defeated and they are entitled to take the line which they consider best not only for the House but for the country. They are right to treat the defeat seriously and to have regard to influences and forces outside our Island. There are friends and enemies looking today at the working of Parliament with great admiration. We look from time to time to the Government for a determined and definite lead on many matters. We ask them for it and often taunt them as vacillating and hesitant. If we want a strong Government let us support them when they are strong in their actions. Although what is being done to-day may be embarrassing to some Members, that does not mean that the Government are not right in the line they have taken in expressing their determination to proceed with the Education Bill on the conditions they have outlined to the House. The issue which is being raised to-day is not as I see it that of entrenching upon the position of private Members as against the power of the Executive. It is a question of how the Government view the situation arising from their defeat, and they are entitled to have a view. I am profoundly glad that the Government have dug their


toes in and said, "We treat this as a matter of confidence." Members who object to the Government tying up the Vote of Confidence with the Education Bill are, I think, under a misapprehension. The Government have treated the House very fairly in saying that they regard this as a matter of first-class importance and that they will treat it as a matter of confidence throughout the whole issue. That was a frank statement and they have told the House that in other stages of the Bill the issue already raised must be treated as embodying confidence. In these circumstances I am glad they are strong and resolute, and in the heavy tasks they have ahead of them in other matters of which we are all thinking I wish them good luck and success.

Mr. Kendall: I rise solely to recall to hon. Members what has been happening since yesterday. Though I am a comparatively new Member, it seems to me that the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government, after their many years of experience in this House, should have been able to find some other means of bringing forward a Motion of Confidence. If the Prime Minister wants my personal Vote of Confidence for him as leader of the war effort, he can have it, but I would not say that for all the Members on the Government front Bench. There are a lot of them I do not like and

Division No. 12.
AYES.



Acland-Troyte Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Cluse, W. S.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Cobb, Captain E. C.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Colegate, W. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Colman, N. C. D.


Alexander, Bg.-Gn. Sir W. (G'g'w C.)
Broad, F. A.
Conant, Major R. J. E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M.(N'flk, N.)


Apsley, Lady
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cove, W. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Craven-Ellis, W.


Baillie, Major Sir A. W. M.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Burden, T. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Burke, W. A.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Burton, Col. H. W.
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Beech, Major F. W.
Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Davison, Sir W. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Caine, G. R. Hall
De Chair, Capt. S. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Denville, Alfred


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Digby, Capt. K. S. D. W.


Benson, G.
Cary, R. A.
Dobbie, W.


Bernays, R. H.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dodd, J. S.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Doland, G. F.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Channon, H.
Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.


Blair, Sir R.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Douglas, F. C. R.


Blaker, Sir R.
Charleton, H. C.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Chater, D.
Drewe, C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Charlton, A. E. L.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Bossom, A. C.
Christie, J. A.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Boulton, W. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S. (Epping)
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)

who, I think, ought not to be there. I voted two nights ago on the Education Bill for something in which I believe, and I am not going to adopt the excuse which, it has been suggested might enable some hon. Members to change their minds. I am still going to vote according to the principles in which I believe, which means that I am going to vote against the Government, without question, on this issue of equal pay for equal work done. If the Government were to do the big thing, and come before us with a Motion of Confidence on all matters affecting the war effort, they could have that Vote of Confidence from me, but they cannot have it on this present issue, which is, to my mind, a petty and miserable way of driving many hon. Members to vote for them, who otherwise would not have done so. The Government are telling them, in effect, to vote for the Government, regardless of the merits of the case. I believe that I am stating the opinion of many hon. Members, and in particular of the Independents who are not here to be destructive but have every desire to be constructive, in their attitude to the Government.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Mr. Bartle Bull (Enfield) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 378; Noes, 43.

Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Peat, C. U.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)
Jennings, R.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Dunn, E.
Jewson, P. W.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Eccles, D. M.
Johnstone, Rt. Hon. H. (Mid'sbre W.)
Petherick, M.


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Peto, Major B. A. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comd. Hn. L. W.
Pilkington, Captain R. A.


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Keatinge, Major E. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Ellis, Sir G.
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Ponsonby, Cot. C. E.


Emery, J. F.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Poole, Captain C. C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)
Power, Sir J. C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Key, C. W.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Price, M. P.


Etherton, Ralph
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Procter, Major H. A.


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.
Pym, L. R.


Everard, Sir w. Lindsay
Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Fildes, Sir H.
Leigh, Sir J.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Foot, D. M.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Foster, W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rankin, Sir R.


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Levy, T.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lewis, O.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Liddall, W. S.
Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Ritson, J.


Gates, Major E. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'b'ke)
Little, Sir E. Graham- (London Univ.)
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Gibbins, J.
Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Glanville, J. E.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Rowlands, G.


Gledhill, G.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Gluckstein, Lt.-Col. L. H.
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Goldie, N. B.
Loftus, P. C.
Salt, E. W.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Graham, Captain A. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Sandys, E. D.


Grant-Ferris, Wing Commander R.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Savory, Professor D. L.


Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Gretton, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'[...])


Gridley, Sir A. B.
MeCallum, Major D.
Selley, Sir H. R.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Shakespeare, Sir G. H.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
McEntee, V. La T.
Shephard, S.


Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
McKie, J. H.
Shuts, Col. Sir J. J.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Magnay, T
Simmonds, Sir O. E.


Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Maitland, Sir A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Makins, Brig-Gen. Sir E.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hall, W. G, (Colne Valley)
Manningham-Buller, Major R. E.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hambro, Capt. A. V.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A,
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Hammersley, S. S.
Marshall, F.
Smith, T. (Narmanton)


Hannen, Sir P. J. H.
Mathers, G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col J.
Snadden, W. McN.


Haslam, Henry
Medlicott, Colonel Frank
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Hayday, A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Helmore, Air Commodore W.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Storey, S


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Molson, A. H. E.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Montague, F.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-
Moore, Lieut.-Col Sir T. C. R.
Studholme, Capt. H. G.


Hepworth, J.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hewlett, T. H.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Suirdale, Viscount


Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, G. A, (Scottish Universities)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Holdsworth, Sir H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastboarne)


Holmes, J. S.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)


Hopkinson, A.
Muff, G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hubbard, T. F.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Thomas, Or. W. S. Russell (S'mpton)


Hulbert, Wing-Commander N. J.
Nield, Major B. E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Nunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Hynd, J. B.
Oliver, G. H.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Isaacs, G. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.


Jackson, W. F.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thurtle, E.


James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)
Owen, Major Sir G.
Tomlinson, G.


James, Admiral Sir W. (Ports'th, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Touche, G. C.


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Pearson, A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.







Turton, R. H.
Weston, W. Garfield
Woodburn, A.


Wakefield, W. W.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)
Woolley, Major W. E.


Walkden, E. (Doncaster)
Wilkinson, Ellen
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
York, Major C.


Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Watkins, F. C.
Windsor, W.



Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Central)
Windsor-dive, Lt.-Col. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Mr. Bartle Bull and Sir Gilford Fox


Wells, Sir S. Richard
Wood, Hon. C. I. C. (York)





NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Granville, E. L.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)


Adams, Major S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, H.)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)


Barstow, P. G.
Harvey, T. E.
Stokes, R. R.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Horabin, T. L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Bowles, F. G.
Kendall, W. D.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Kirby, B. V.
Tinker, J. J.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Watson, W. McL.


Cocks, F. S.
McGhee, H. G.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughten)
Mack, J. D,
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Driberg, T. E. N.
McNeill, H.
Wright, Group-Capt. J. (Erdington)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Maxton, J.



Gallacher, W.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—




Mr. McGovern and Mr. Silverman

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Division No. 13.
AYES.



Acland, Sir R. T. D
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hardie, Agnes
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham (St. M.)


Bowles, F. G.
Horabin, T. L.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Kendall, W. D.
Stokes, R. R.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
MeGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mack, J. D.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maclean, N. (Gavan)
White, C. F. (Derby, W.)


Gallacher, W.
Martin, J. H.



Granville, E. L.
Maxton, J,
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—




Mr. McGovern and Mr. Silverman




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Cluse, W. S.


Adams, Major S. V. T. (Loads, W.)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Cobb, Captain E. C.


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Colegate, W. A.


Adamton, W. M. (Cannock)
Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Colman, N. C. D.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Conant, Major R. J. E.


Alexander, Bt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Broad, F. A.
Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T..R. A. M. (N'flk, N.)


Alexander, Bg.-Gn. Sir W. (G'gow C.)
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Cooke, J, D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Allen, U.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Brooklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Courlhope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Apsley, Lady
Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Cove, W. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Craven-Ellis, W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Baillie, Major Sir A. W. M.
Bull, B. B.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)


Barnes, A. J.
Burden, T W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Barr, J.
Burke, W. A.
Davison, Sir W. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Burton, Col. H. W.
De Chair, Cant. S. S.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cadogan, Maj. Sir E.
Denville, Alfred


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Caine, G. R. Hall
Digby, Capt. K. S. D. W.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'ts'h)
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Dabble, W.


Beech, Major F. W.
Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Dodd, J. S.


Beéhman, N. A.
Cary, R. A.
Do land, G. F.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dormer, Squadron-Leader P. W


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Douglas, F. C. R.


Benson, G.
Channon, H.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.


Bernays, Captain R. H.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Drewe, C.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Charleton, H. C.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Chater, D.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Blair, Sir R.
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)


Blaker, Sir R.
Christie, J. A.
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)


Boles, Lt. Col. D. C
Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S. (Ep'ing)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Dunn, E.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 28, Noes, 394.

Eccles, D. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Ede, J. C.
Jennings, R.
Parker, J.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jewson, P. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Johnstone, Rt. Hon. H. (Mid'sbro W.)
Pearson, A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)
Peat, C. U.


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Emery, J. F.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W-
Petherick, M.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Keatings, Major E. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Peto, Major B. A. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Etherton, Ralph
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Pilkington, Captain R. A.


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Key, C. W.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Fildes, Sir H.
Kirby, B. V.
Poole, Captain C. C.


Fleming, Squadron Leader E. L.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Power, Sir J. C.


Fool, D. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Foster, W.
Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.
Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Price, M. P.


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Leigh, Sir J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pym, L. R.


Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Galbraith, Comdr, T. D.
Levy, T.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Lewis, O.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Gates, Major E. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Rankin, Sir R.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)
Lindsay, K. M.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Gibbins, J.
Linstead, H. N.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Lipson, O. L.
Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Glanville, J. E.
Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.
Raid, W. Allan (Derby)


Gledhill, G.
Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Ritson, J.


Gluckttein, Lt.-Col. L. H.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, W.


Goldie, N. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Locker-Lampson, Commander O. S.
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Graham, Captain A. D. (Wirral)
Loftus, P. C.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Gram-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Rowlands, G.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver
Salt, E. W.


Gretton, J. F.
Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sandys, E. D.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McCallum, Major D.
Savory, Professor D. L.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McCorquedale, Malcolm S.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Grimslon, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
McEntee, V. La T.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
McKie, J. H.
Selley, Sir H. R.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
McNeil, H.
Shakespeare, Sir G. H.


Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Magnay, T.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Maitland, Sir A.
Shephard, S.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hambro, Capt. A. V.
Manningham-Buller, Major R. E.



Hammersley, S. S.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Shute, Col. Sir J. J.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Marshall, F.
Simmonds, Sir O. E.


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Mathers, G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Harvey, T. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Haslam, Henry
Medlicott, Colonel Frank
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hayday, A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Helmore, Air Commodore W.
Messer, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Snadden, W. MoN.


Henderson, J, J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Molson, A. H. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-
Montague, F.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Hepworth, J.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Storey, S.


Hewlett, T. H.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Stourton, Major Hon J. J.


Higgs, W. F.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Holdsworth, Sir H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Studholme, Captain H. G.


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hopkinson, A.
Mort, D. L.
Suirdale, Viscount


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Muff, G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hubbard, T. F.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Tale, Mrs. Mavis C.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)


Hulbert, Wing Commander N. J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Nield, Major B. E.
Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W-


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Nunn, W.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Isaacs, G. A.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jackson, W. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


James, Admiral Sir W. (Ports'th, N.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thorne, W.


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Owen, Major Sir G.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)







Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.
Watkins, F. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Thurtle, E.
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Tomlinton, G.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C. (York)


Touche, G. C.
Wells, Sir S. Richard
Woodburn, A.


Tree, A. R. L. F.
Weston, W. Garfield
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Turton, R. H.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Viant, S. P.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Wakefield, W. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)


Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
York, Major C.


Walkden, E. (Doncaster)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)



Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Windsor, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.
Windsor-dive, Lt.-Col. G.
Mr. Boulton and Capt. McEwen

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): My task in to-day's proceedings is to oppose, on behalf of the Government, the Motion that this Clause stand part of the Bill. The Clause, as amended, is, in our view, unsuitable; and, therefore, contrary to my usual practice on the Education Bill of desiring to get Clauses through, I must advise the Committee to reject this Clause. It will, as I shall show, not achieve the reform which hon. Members supporting the Amendment desired, and it will upset the free negotiating machinery of the Burnham Committee for the determination of teachers' salaries, which has worked so successfully for the last 25 years. Indeed, I think I should make it clear to the Committee and to those who study our deliberations outside that the issue raised by the Amendment is not that of equal pay for equal work—upon which we all have our own ideas, and upon which I could make as good a speech as anybody else—but of interference with the negotiations of an independent body dealing with wage questions.
Any interference, of whatever character it may be—and I do not just refer to the particular form of interference suggested by the Amendment—would create a new and most undesirable precedent, which would be keenly resented, not only by the authorities but, as I have reason to know, by the accredited representatives of the teachers. I stated this information quite definitely in our last Debate on this matter, and I may relieve the feelings of the Committee by telling them that I have very little to add to what I said then. I stated my views definitely on that occasion, because I foresaw danger to the Education Bill. In some quarters it was thought that I was wrong

to state them so definitely, but I do not regret it now, because the fact is that we have come up against difficulties which might have been avoided had the course taken by the movers of the Amendment been rather different. I foresaw that this incursion into the Education Bill was likely to have grievous results; and those results I have regretted very much indeed.
I regret that an issue of this sort should have arisen on the Bill. I suppose that, in the course of preparing this Bill, I have had, and the Government have had, to handle as many religious and political problems as can be imagined. In many cases the two streams of religious and political feeling have crossed, making eddies of extreme difficulty for the political navigator, but I have tried to bring nothing to the Committee which was not thoroughly discussed and worked out before, and I have tried to save the Committee from getting into a jam. I, therefore, regret all the more that this issue was forced upon me in a manner which led to a clash. No one can possibly say that on this Bill the Government have not been patient and conciliatory; and also, on the other side—

Mr. Maxton: Nobody can say that the Committee have not.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me make my reply. The next words of my notes are exactly the same as those he has used. If he thought that I was not going to pay tribute to the Committee, he was wrong. Perhaps he will now get up again, and pay a tribute to me.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman was defending himself, and I was defending the Committee.

Mr. Butler: I was going to say that we have been greatly aided by the Committee in the course of this Measure. I was going to explain that the Committee stage of the Bill has been so much helped by


members of the Committee that a number of Amendments which have been moved by hon. Members have resulted in considerable improvement of the Measure.
The number of Amendments accepted, including the small ones, is about 50, of which 40, at least, are substantial. We have by no means finished the Bill yet, and I anticipate that, as we proceed with the more important Clauses, there will be other favours to come which may well please those who are taking an interest in the Bill. I do not want to arouse hopes, but I have accepted useful suggestions from every part of the House, including one from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) himself, who took part in our discussions on the question of adult education, in a manner which was thoroughly worthy of our discussions and in a manner likely to have an effect on educational policy in this country and not in the country from which he comes, because this Measure deals with England and Wales. I am sure we are very much obliged to him and to other hon. Members of the Committee. I would remind the Committee of one or two examples to show how really useful the Committee stage of the Bill has been, and how unreal is the view that the Committee stage is—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I regret to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there was a Ruling given by my predecessor earlier, which will be in the memory of the Committee, and I would like to point out that, if we have very many illustrations of other Amendments, which are not in this Clause, the position of the Chair is going to be very difficult.

Mr. Butler: This really does make it difficult for the Government. The Government have been sitting here listening to a very interesting Debate for two hours, and I am trying to answer doubts in the minds of hon. Members. One of the doubts in the minds of hon. Members has been whether the Committee stage is a reality, and I was simply trying to illustrate the fact that hon. Members have been helpful to me. Perhaps I had better leave it at that.
I was about to give other illustrations, which I am now unable to do, to indicate that, even from the quarter from which this Amendment was moved, the Govern-

ment have received great assistance in the course of the Committee stage. I would not like to leave that out of my speech, for fear of the impression that I was giving bouquets to some quarters but not to others. The general conclusion of this has been that the Government have not, I think, ever used more often the phrase, that they will look into the point, or—what is the classical phrase of a Minister piloting through a big Measure—more frequently undertaken, at this or a later stage to examine particular matters. We have purposely done that because all of us have taken part in this Committee stage, in fashioning this great Measure together, and there has been, apart from this unfortunate incident, no dash which any of us have any cause to regret whatever.
The time comes, however, when the Government cannot use formulas to escape from issues forced upon them. The time comes when the Minister and the Government must state their views very clearly, if, as I found in my case, one cannot administer the Clause as amended. It is especially important, I think, that Ministers should be careful in fashioning this great social legislation, that they should not undertake to the Committee or the House to carry out anything they cannot perform. That was the reason why I stated so clearly my view that I was unable to accept the Amendment as moved. Now I must oppose the Clause standing part. As Minister of Education working in partnership with the local authorities and the teachers, I know that the method suggested by the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir), with great sincerity, was not the best method of securing equal pay for equal work.
Let us examine the Clause and the Amendment to see if I was justified in what I have done. The object of the Clause was to enforce upon local authorities the duty of paying scales agreed by the voluntary negotiating machinery—the Burnham Committee. We have depended and shall depend upon this machinery. Up to the drafting of this Clause 82, the Board had depended, in administering the question of the scales of teachers' salaries, on their grant regulations, and this Clause is an improvement on that procedure, since, under the regulations, the Board's only power to ensure that authorities pay the scales agreed by the Burnham Panels is to make deductions from the authorities'


grants if they do not pay the Burnham Scales, and if, in consequence, the efficiency of education is endangered. We therefore inserted this Clause to make the payment of the scales mandatory upon the authorities. The object of this Clause was not to substitute the decision of the Minister for the free negotiating machinery by which these scales are agreed between the partners in education.
If I may digress for a moment, it is simply to say that the value of the negotiating machinery is not confined simply to the world of education. I was for a short period Under-Secretary to the Minister of Labour, and there I learned to appreciate the value of the Joint Industrial Councils and the negotiating machinery that takes place in industry. Similarly, in the world of agriculture, wages are finally decided by impartial persons. The difficulty the Government are in about the Clause as amended is that the hon. Lady's Amendment would radically alter this position, and insert it in the Clause. It would bind the Minister not to differentiate between men and women. Thus, if the recommendations of the Burnham Panel were submitted to the Minister, as they are now, with scales different for men and women, the Minister would be obliged to step in and regulate the whole wages by equalising the amount as between men and women. This would not be a position that I, for one, or the Government, would be ready to take up, and that is the reason why we are unable to administer the Clause as amended by the hon. Lady's Amendment. It would be quite another matter if the Burnham Panel were to submit recommendations, through their ordinary machinery, that men and women teachers should be paid equal rates. That is the constitutional method to adopt.

Earl Winterton: Might I ask a question? That, surely does not mean that, at any future time, if there was a general decision to have equal pay for men and women, in all Government Departments, the Ministry of Education would be devoid of any methods of obtaining it?

Mr. Butler: May I go on with my speech, to explain the point made by the Noble Lord? I was about to say that, if hon. Members of the Committee wonder

where this matter can be raised and, therefore, where this principle of equal pay for equal work can be introduced into the world of teaching, this is, I think, how the thing would work out. I can assure the Committee, from my reexamination of the question since the last Debate, that this question has been very much on the agenda, and I am informed that it is now one of the items of the salary policy of the Teachers' Elementary Panel. That means, if the Committee is interested in the matter, that they can be assured that the question is already to the fore in the world of education. It is naturally a subject of great interest to women teachers, who are in the majority. The answer to the Noble Lord's point is that it is not the Government who employ or pay the teachers. It is the local authorities who employ and pay the teachers, and I feel quite certain that it is best for this Committee not to force the authorities to pay the teachers equal salaries and make this change, but to leave it to them, the authorities and the teachers, to discuss it and agree it together.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: May I ask one question? Does not the Government pay 60 per cent. of the grant for teachers' salaries?

Mr. Butler: I said that in the course of my speech. The Government make their grants, of which the teachers' salaries form one of the main burdens, but that does not mean that the Government are the employers of the teachers, nor does it mean that it would be right for the Government, or the teachers or the authorities, to overthrow this priceless machinery by which wages are regulated between the two sides.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that the employers of the teachers are the taxpayers, and that Parliament is the representative of the taxpayers and Parliament surely is the right place in which to give a lead to the local authorities and the Burnham Panel on the principles of the payment of salaries?

Mr. Butler: The ratepayers are just as much involved as the taxpayers, and I think it would be wise for the Committee to rely upon the view of the teachers themselves, and of the authorities and the


Government, that it would be wrong to interfere with the method by which teachers' salaries have, with such success, been regulated for the last 25 years, and I certainly am quite unwilling to disturb that machinery, which has led to such excellent results. The truth is that the only way to influence this, is to encourage the teachers and the authorities to discuss it together, and they will discuss it much more easily together when the subject is regarded as a wider one than that involving only the world of education. It is part of a much wider question, and should be raised as a wider issue, and not decided in the course of an Amendment to the Education Bill, because, as I pointed out, by insisting on that Amendment, the Committee would be overturning the very machinery upon which we depend so much for the regulation of teachers' salaries. I think it would be wrong to upset the particular negotiating machinery by which both sides set store, in order to force the Government to declare its hand on major policy.
Surely, the best policy of the Committee is not to support this Clause as amended standing part, but to enable the Government to consider this matter as part of a wider issue, in the company and with the help of hon. Members themselves. We are here and now considering the Education Bill in Committee, before a distinguished audience, whom we are glad to welcome to our discussions, and it would be better to continue with the Education Bill and discuss these questions elsewhere on another occasion. So far as I am concerned, my interest is in the Education Bill. I think it was inappropriate to amend this Clause in the way suggested, but I have nothing to say about the motives of those who moved the Amendment. I am sure that they were actuated by the highest principles, but I think the result of their actions and of their supporters will not work out as happily as they desire. I, therefore, hope that they will support the Government in opposing the Motion, "That the Clause stand part," in the belief that the wider question must be raised in a wider way, and that the world of education will, no doubt, wish to take steps to march forward to that wider world.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I did not take part in that somewhat dis-

organised discussion which took place before my right hon. Friend opposed the Motion now before the Committee. I have done my best to help my right hon. Friend, both before the Bill was introduced and during its consideration, and I feel that, if our personal relationships were disturbed, it would be a very serious loss to me. I hope the Minister is not going to attribute to me any sort of narrow motives. I am going to support my right hon. Friend though we were in different Lobbies on Tuesday. I believe in equal pay for equal work. My party has stood for it so many years, and has re-affirmed its view on so many occasions, that it is part of my being and it is a good democratic principle, however difficult it may be to apply in practice. But this Clause is a very simple Clause. It is devoted to one issue, that of making obligatory on all local authorities those conclusions of the Burnham Committee approved by the Minister. The Clause, therefore, is a very good Clause, and, personally, I would not like to lose it. We have carried the matter further by introducing Amendments dealing with a much wider issue and I repeat that this Bill could have gone forward before either without Clause 82 or with Clause 82. It was, perhaps, using the opportunity, not unknown in this House during the many years that I have been a Member of it, of introducing something which is really extraneous to the main purpose of a Bill. That I freely admit. This matter has been before the House on many occasions. In 1936 the Government of the day got into very serious difficulties on this question of equal pay for equal work. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security herself introduced a Bill into the House, which accepted that principle during this Parliament. Really the Government cannot absolve themselves from their responsibilities for dealing with this principle.
I would, to ease the situation, make two suggestions. The first, which I think would not be adequate in itself, is, that this general principle ought to be discussed by the House of Commons. [Interruption.] Members on the opposite side of the Committee know that I have said in private and I have said it at this Box, that I object to, general principles being determined on particular instances. Hon. Members know that I have objected to the whole question of delegated legislation being dealt with on particular Bills. I


have supported the view of hon. Members opposite, that we ought to have a discussion on the principle. Delegated legislation is not a simple problem. There are different forms of it, and different methods of application. That seems to me to be sound, and I should have thought that, on this item, admitting, as I have, that perhaps this principle of equal pay for equal work was rather dragged in, the Government might, at a very early stage, let us have a discussion of the principle on the major problem. It is unfair to shackle my right hon. Friend with a responsibility which is not his—I had that in mind last Tuesday—and I would not do it. Clearly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a voice in such an important and far-reaching matter. A discussion on the general principle is what the House desires. I believe that those who spoke in favour of the Amendment the other night were not concerned with this as a teachers' problem. The people who raised this were concerned with the principle of equality of pay.

Mr. Colegate: That is in direct contradiction to almost the very first words of the speech of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir).

Mrs. Cowllet Keir: If I had raised the issue generally, I would have been out of Order.

Mr. Greenwood: I am talking about the general trend of the speeches, as Members of the Committee know well, and the hon. Member must not try to browbeat me on this. The people who spoke had in their minds the application of the general principle. That is what they wanted. I am trying to help the hon. Lady. I would like to see an early Debate in this House on the principle. I would go further—though no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would wish to consider this—and say that surely the time has arrived when the House of Commons, by Select Committee, or such other form of inquiry as might be thought most fitted for the purpose, should inquire into this wide range of problems affecting the equality of the sexes in employment. I believe that it would aid the Committee in the Debate to-day, if some sort of undertaking of that kind were given. Then, the position of the teachers would fall into place as part of a larger problem of the employ-

ment of women. One further point I would like to make. There have been one or two occasions when I have voted against the Government. They have been very few. I accept the responsibility of my office in my party, and I have no mandate to do anything until I have further instructions from a higher authority than even hon. Members here.

The Deputy-Chairman: If we are to go into questions as to why everyone voted, this Debate will take a very long time. I ought to remind the Committee that we must keep as firmly as we can to the Clause itself.

Mr. Greenwood: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but I was not explaining the reasons why I voted on Tuesday. I was only saying that, if the Government feel that their position is endangered and that this Bill is to be endangered by the Committee insisting on the attitude taken on Tuesday, I have no authority to change it. I shall—and I always declare my intentions to the House—ask my hon. Friends to vote with me at the end of the discussion in support of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education.

Earl Winterton: I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said in the closing words of his speech, but in so far as it is in Order to do so on the Clause, I would also like to say a word in support of what the right hon. Gentleman said on the general principle. I feel sure that what I am going to say will fall upon sympathetic ears as far as the Government are concerned, and, I hope, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned. Perhaps I may have the attention of my right hon. Friend for a moment.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I thought that the Noble Lord was addressing the whole Committee and not particularly addressing me. I very often notice him engaged in active conversation himself, no doubt on public business.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry if I appeared discourteous. I was making an appeal. I will do it in few words, and it will not interrupt any business of my right hon. Friend. It would make it much easier for those who are going to support the Government, if we could have some sort of assurance from the Government on


the lines of what has just been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that, at some not too distant date, we shall have an opportunity of putting our views before the Government on the whole question of equal pay for equal work. May I make one further personal reminder to my right hon. Friend? He will have very much in mind, as I have very much in my own recollection, the days when this question of the position of women in our polity was an embarrassment to all political parties. I say with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, that sooner or later, in the circumstances in which this House and the Government find themselves, the Government and the House will have to make up their minds on the main question. Is it possible to give an assurance —it may well not be—in view of the speech made by the Leader of the Labour Party, one of the most important parties supporting the Government—[Laughter]. Is that denied? What is the joke about that? If hon. Gentlemen who laugh at that wish the National Government to come to an end, let them say so. I repeat my observation, that the Labour Party is one of the important elements supporting the Government, and when the Leader of that party makes an appeal to the Government, it is, to say the least of it, discourteous of hon. Gentlemen opposite to treat that statement as being of no importance. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not take that attitude and I do not ask him to intervene personally now, but I commend to his notice what my right hon. Friend has said, and suggest that it would make the position very much easier.

The Primé Minister (Mr. Churchill): I do not intend to detain the Committee because, owing to the Rulings that have been given as to what may be and may not be urged in this discussion—which I of course, accept with the greatest respect —I do not feel that I would be justified in attempting to unfold the arguments which I would otherwise have done to the Committee on this particular Measure and the significance attaching to it. Therefore, I will not do so, and I rise only for the purpose of assuring the Committee that my not taking part in the Debate, is not due to any want of respect for them or any desire to shirk my duty of laying before them arguments which I conceive

would be likely to influence them on this occasion.
With regard to the proposal which was made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and which the Noble Lord has sustained, the position of the Government is, that until they are fortified by a Vote of Confidence from the House, taking the form of the deletion of this Clause, they do not feel entitled to embark upon promises for the future. I may say that I cannot conceive how anyone who cares about the equality of payment for equal work between men and women could feel damnified, in presenting that case in the future, by the fact that they do not to-day wish to tack it on to the end of Clause 82. Their rights remain absolutely unimpeached. Everyone knows what opportunities there are in every Session. Everyone knows that it is the duty of the Government to give effect to what is known to be the general wish of the House, even if the particular Parliamentary moments do not occur. Therefore, I say there cannot be any question of conscientious clash upon that subject but I do not wish to trespass beyond the strict limits to which it is our duty to confine ourselves, in what we say, as I am sure it will be the desire of the Committee to expedite the proceedings on this Bill.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister a simple question? I quite appreciate that he would not wish to make any statement at this moment, but the issue having been raised and having now become a public issue, if I were to ask him one day in the next series of Sittings whether the Government were prepared to consider an early Debate and, I hope, the establishment of an inquiry, would it be appropriate for me to do so?

The Prime Minister: If I should find myself in that position, I would gladly give an answer to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Cove: Now we go back to Clause 82 and discuss the merits of that Clause. I understand from the statement of the Prime Minister that the wider issue can be discussed on another occasion. I want to say at once that as far as I am concerned I am quite willing and ready to delete this Clause. I have never regarded is as germane to the Bill itself. I always thought it was somewhat extraneous, and I do hope that the Minister


will not attempt on a future occasion to reimpose it on us. Let this Clause go. Do not try to revive it in any form whatever. In saying that, I am quite sure I am voicing the opinion both of the teachers and, I think, of the education authorities. Let this Clause go out of the Bill as a whole. We regard it on the educational side as giving too much dictatorial power to the Minister himself. We regard it as interfering with the normal working of the Burnham Committee. I suppose I am the only Member of the House who has been a member of that Committee. It has now been working successfully for 25 years and has been a most successful instrument for arranging the salaries of teachers during that period.
I say quite bluntly that what the profession is afraid of, what the National Union of Teachers is afraid of, is that if this is carried it will break down that negotiating party. Therefore, the teachers are very concerned indeed that the Burnham Committee should remain in being in all its functions. It is not true to say that the National Union of Teachers are not in favour of equal pay, for it has put that case forward on every revision of the scale of salaries of teachers over a period. On the other side of the table, of course, are the local authorities, and they have resisted up till now the principle of equal pay. If, however, the Burnham Committee agrees to equal pay and the Government turn it down afterwards, then we can indict the Government, whatever Government is in power, but quite frankly the Burnham Committee as a whole does not want instructions given to it. The Burnham Committee wants to be free, it does not want any remit even from the Government. It wants the people round the table, the teachers on the one side and the authorities on the other side, to discuss what rates of remuneration shall be paid to the profession. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but, up till now, that body has been very successful in meeting the salaried position as far as the teachers are concerned, and I hope therefore, that the Committee will join the Government in deleting this Clause. The teachers do not want it, neither do the authorities want it, and I hope the Prime Minister will not try to reimpose it at a later stage. Let it go. Let the situation be met quite sweetly and reasonably, let the Burnham Committee resume negotia-

tions, as they have in the past, and I am quite sure there will be satisfaction among the teachers.

Mr. Maxton: I understand that my hon. Friend wishes the Vote of Confidence to be called off and wishes us simply to discuss the Clause.

Mr. Cove: I am not concerned about the Vote of Confidence. I say, quite frankly, let the Clause go.

Mr. Maxton: I should be very annoyed, and I am sure the Government would be annoyed if, after seeing all the backwoodsmen turning up to-day—

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not talk about backwoodsmen. Many hon. Members on the back benches are doing public work and are often in the Services.

Mr. Maxton: That interruption from the Prime Minister indicates that on this matter he is getting much too sensitive. I used a term that has been common parlance in the House of Commons for all his time here, probably for a bit of his father's time, too, and it is not a term of contempt—or at least it is not entirely a term of contempt. I was really going to say that I am sure the Prime Minister would be annoyed if his more loyal, but more frequently absent Members, did not have the opportunity of indicating their 100 per cent. support for him today. I know, whether it is his view or not, that I would be annoyed if I did not have the opportunity of casting my vote against the Government. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that on the day he took office there was a Vote of Confidence then, and I challenged the wisdom of a National Government formed on the basis of a coalition of parties that had nothing much in common beyond the exigencies of that moment—

Viscountess Astor: Of winning the war.

Mr. Maxtor: I do not know that was just the issue there on that day, but we will not go into that. Certainly that was not the issue on Tuesday when the Committee, by a very narrow majority of one, at an hour much beyond our normal times of sittings, with only two-fifths of the House of Commons present, carried an Amendment that was inconvenient to the Government. I am not going to


argue for one moment that this House is a bankrupt House and that when a Committee can carry a thing by one vote it has got to stand for ever and ever, however obviously awkward and inconvenient it is, for we have within our machinery the capacity to change a ad decision. I am not objecting in the least to the House taking steps to consider whether the decision on Tuesday was its wisest decision or not. I do not object to that at all. I think that the decision on Tuesday was a correct one. I am not impressed with the laudation of the Burnham Committee. I can remember that I was keenly interested in the welfare of the teaching profession when the Burnham Committee and its Scottish equivalent the Craik Committee was set up. They were set up by the authority of this House with certain terms of reference and certain rules governing their conduct. The Burnham Committee did not evolve out of struggles between the local authorities and the teachers; it was a machine created by the Government of the day through the agency of this House of Commons.

Viscountess Astor: Come over here.

Mr. Maxton: The noble Lady may be more interested in other parts of the city than listening to me, and I would not object if she went.

Viscountess Astor: I want to listen.

Mr. Maxton: I cannot accept the view either of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) or of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education that any Committee set up by this House—I see some hon. Members are about to go. Obviously they have still to decide their policy.

Captain Bernays: I want to make it plain to the Committee why some of my hon. Friends and myself are going away. It is to make a presentation to one of our colleagues who is being married shortly.

Mr. Maxton: I thought they were arranging to make up their minds to follow the normal procedure to agree to differ. Obviously the hon. Member who is remaining has not subscribed.

Sir George Schuster: The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. I have a better sense of values.

Mr. Maxton: I apologise. This has created the atmosphere I desired. This House could never accept for one minute that a committee outside of itself, created by itself, should have such dominating power as to say to the House "No."

Mr. Butler: I have taken the opportunity of verifying the establishment of the Burnham Committees, and it appears they were established in the summer of 1918. The President of the Board at that time took the initiative of summoning a series of conferences, but the Committees were established by the teachers representatives and the authorities.

Mr. Cove: The Burnham Committee was composed, as the right hon. Gentleman says, of representatives of teachers and of the authorities. They came together because at that time there was a great disturbance in the educational world and they wanted to prevent a series of strikes among the teachers. I led one of those strikes. The Burnham Committee then proceeded on the basis of an ordinary committee, but it is fundamentally representative of teachers and local authorities.

Mr. Maxton: Some of the conferences were summoned by the President of the Board of Education.

Mr. Butler: I have summoned a good many conferences myself, but the President of the Board of Education at the time simply got the people together and they then set up the Committees on their own motion.

Mr. Maxton: I modify what I said after hearing this explanation. I was misled before. There must be some difference in the attitude and status with the corresponding body in Scotland. I was a member of an education authority in Scotland and I know that, as a member of that authority, I did not walk in with an absolutely free hand to vote for whatever salary I wanted. I know I was handed a whole lot of principles that had to be observed in the establishment of scales and salaries. It would 'have been no terrible thing for this House to have said that the Burnham Committee was still the negotiating machinery, that the local authorities were still the people who were to apply the scheme and to pay the bills, but that they must be governed by this general principle that where men and women are doing equal work and have


similar qualifications they must be paid at the same rate. That was a legitimate and a right and proper thing for the British House of Commons to say. Let me say this. If the Bill is to work—and I am anxious to see it through and will continue to help to see it through—it must be a real living reality. What is going to make it that is what the Prime Minister talked about on Sunday night over the air as a first-rate contribution to the post-war world. Unless your young women teachers going to these schools every morning feel that they have a job worth doing and that they are recognised as being fitted for that job the Bill is just worthless. It needs the vitality of the young women teachers of this country.
There has been much talk by the Leader of the Opposition, as he has been called, this week in reference to setting about this thing in the right way. But the House had already to face this principle this Session in reference to the compensation of men and women for civil injuries. That is the same principle on a very small scale.

Captain Cobb: Does my hon. Friend realise that the same applies to wages? A woman would not expect to be paid less for her car which had been damaged than a man. It is a question of compensation.

Mr. Maxton: I know there is a big difference between compensation and a job and you do not expect the same. There is a principle involved there. What does it cost a person to live? What does it cost a person to carry on? One of the elements is the same whether it is for injury or for employment. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Government has made out its case. The strongest case made out is this. If the House of Commons insists on doing this, then the Burnham Committee will not break. Would that be accepted by the miners? If there is one section of the community that can easily be coerced by the Government of the day, it is the local authorities.
I do not think the Minister was right when he came to us and made this a matter of confidence. He made an error of judgment. He assumed he was going to get through on that day and he threw everything in, including himself, which, I think, was a mistake. When it was reported to the Prime Minister, he was not

content with the President of the Board of Education throwing everything in; he threw everything in as well. The Committee meets to-day, not to insert the original Clause, but to wipe out the Amendment, and we are told that if we want to pursue our attitude of no confidence in the Government, we love the Germans better than our own country. I, personally, am prepared to take the risk of being misrepresented.
I want to conclude on this note. I think that a great deal of this trouble has arisen because the House of Commons has for four years—since the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister took office—not been run as the House of Commons requires to be run. We have a Government and an Opposition derived from the same sources, so that Members, to a very large extent, have got into their heads that they can be Government supporters on one day and oppositionists on another, and something different, again, on yet another. It is an unenviable alliance. I am very amused at the part which the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has played in all this, because not so many months ago, at the time when we were discussing the Gracious Speech from the Throne, the hon. Member, on behalf of the Government, talked out the Amendment on which I and a number of my hon. Friends of the Opposition were anxious to divide the House. He gave as his reasons that he did not want to play into my hands by having a Division in this House in the face of the enemy. Well, he has come a hell of a long way since then—

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. Gentleman is going a little too far from Clause 82, as amended.

Mr. Maxton: The word I meant to use was "considerable." Yesterday or the day before, the hon. Member for Oxford was leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hogg indicated dissent.

Mr. Maxton: Take it from me, I have worked at that job. To-day, the hon. Member is one of the patient oxen. I should have thought that, having regard to who the bridegroom was, there would have been a banquet. The lesson of this week's happenings is this: that the time to resume party government in this House is more than overdue, that the time to


get a Government that is a Government and an Opposition that is an Opposition, has now arrived. I know many people are restrained by the thought that it would look bad abroad, but it would only look bad for about 24 hours, for about two nights on the wireless. We must resume a genuine position, in which the parties in this country are aligned on the basis of principles. If we do that, we shall be able to get, in the House of Commons, the free expression of different trends of public thought that are disclosing themselves in the country. This huge amalgam, which has been running along for the last four years, with no common political principles at all, and which is held together purely by—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will keep in Order and deal with Clause 82, as amended.

Mr. Maxton: The Ruling your predecessor gave earlier, Sir Charles, was an extended one and I recollect that the Prime Minister was very insistent that this should be a Vote of Confidence. I want to conclude by indicating that I propose to vote against the Government, because I do not think that they are now worthy of the confidence of this House. I believe it is not good for the social future of this country that the present Government should remain as they are to-day. I go so far as to say that I do not think it is the best Government to control what I hope will be the final stages of this world war. It is because I believe in equal pay for men and women, because I do not believe the House of Commons should be made subordinate to any outside Committee in its decisions, because I do not believe that the present Government, even for this purpose or any other of the major purposes that lie in front of them is the best Government, and because the Prime Minister has demanded that this shall be a Vote of Confidence, that I propose to go into the Lobby to-day to vote against that Vote of Confidence.

Mr. Lipson: I hold the view that this Clause is both a good and an important Clause from the point of view of educational progress in this country. In its original form, where it gave the Minister power to implement all the findings of the Burnham Committee with regard to salaries it was doing something which is very necessary and in its

amended form, by which equal pay is to be given to women teachers, it was rendering a service to educational progress. I cannot agree with those who say that the question of equal pay for men and women teachers is something extraneous to the Bill. If this Bill is to be carried out we know very well that we shall require a large number of teachers. The number of those teachers is important but of equal importance is their quality. By agreeing to equal pay to women teachers we shall be doing an act of justice to the majority of teachers who are already in our schools. I believe that that act would encourage them in their tasks. We also want to attract more able women into the teaching profession. At the present time the profession, both for men and women, is underpaid but it is especially true as regards women teachers. By making the pay of women teachers equal to that of men you would be increasing substantially their remuneration and removing the sense of inferiority of status which obtains at the present time.

Mr. Lewis: Does my hon. Friend think that women's wages would be put up? There is nothing hi the Amendment to say so.

Mr. Lipson: I am quite satisfied that if the purpose of those who voted for the Amendment was implemented it would mean a substantial increase in the present rate of pay of women teachers, because they would, at least, be placed on the same scale as men. I also believe that by giving equal pay to women teachers you would be taking a long step towards bringing about greater unity among the teaching profession. You cannot have unity in a profession where you have men and women paid on different scales, and I consider that it is in the interests of education that this should be brought about.
It is, therefore, extremely hard that, holding the views I do about the value and the importance of the Clause, I should be asked by the Government to agree that it should be deleted. Their argument for doing this is that the question of equal pay for men and women teachers cannot be treated in isolation. I am prepared to accept that, but what is sauce for the Government goose is also sauce for the back bench gander and, if they cannot regard this question in isolation, neither


can I regard in isolation the vote that I am asked to give. A Latin quotation comes to my mind—facilis descensus Averno. "Easy is the descent to Hell." I am asked by the Government to enter on a slippery slope. I am asked to do something that I have never done as a Member of this House, to vote against something that I believe in, and if the Government ask me, for reasons which they consider good, to do this, I feel that I have a right to appeal to them to do two things. The first is that they will pause before they ask Members of this House to vote again against things in which they believe, and the second is that they will bring before the Burnham Committee what took place on Tuesday night, and the views expressed by the Committee, and ask them to give consideration to this question of equal pay for men and women. I am not asking them to instruct the Burnham Committee or to be bound by their decision, but the least the Government can do after what has taken place is to ask the Burnham Committee to do something they have not done before and that is to give consideration to this question. If the Government would agree to do that I believe that those who will vote for them to-day because it has been treated as a Vote of Confidence will find it easier to do so.

Mr. Barr: I entirely agree with what has fallen from the last speaker. I am also unable to take action to-day which would cancel the vote that I cast the other night. I also entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) when he says in, effect that, if there had been a willing mind on the part of the Government, they could have overcome all the difficulties about the Burnham Committee. I disagree with what has fallen, I think from the right hon. Gentleman who was leading the Opposition, when he said we must settle these things not on particular questions but on general principles. It was said that we must first of all take up the wider issue. To that my reply is, that in my reading of history great reforms have been begun as a rule in individual cases. Particular questions have often come in a haphazard way and created anomalies which have had to be rectified by those concerned in other questions and other industries. So I hope very strongly that we shall not be called upon to cancel out what we did on Tuesday.
It might perhaps have been an argument for cancelling it out, if we had been able to say it was a snatch Division. I do not believe it was. It was a large Division, and it had been advertised in our House of Commons Papers. The Amendment had been on the Paper for a long time. It was no incidental vote that I gave. I belong to a Church which gives equal rights, as well as equal pay, to men and women and which has opened up all offices, including the pulpit, to women on equal terms with men. I am proud to say that my own daughter walks into a pulpit every Sunday, and I am proud to say that in her examinations at Glasgow University she took the Degree of Bachelor of Divinity with distinction, which is only awarded to one or two candidates in the course of a year. This is no new subject to me, is very dear to my heart and, for that very reason, I cannot now wipe out even in this roundabout way the vote that I gave.
Another reason that might be given for expunging the Clause is that the Amendment was carried by a majority of only one. Some of the greatest events in the country's history were carried by a majority of only one. In the pages of Macaulay you will find one of the most graphic descriptions that we have of the scene in the House of Commons when the first Reform Bill on 21st March, 1831, was carried by 302 votes to 301. That is one of the great outstanding advances in our country. I hope that, even in this roundabout way, this Clause will be a new milestone in our country's history and in acclaiming the rights of women.
I see that we are getting names thrown at us in the public Press. We are "rebels." Rebels against what? Rebels against our own past? Surely not. We are not rebels against our lifelong testimony and actions in this regard. Some of the Press goes further and hints that we are traitors to our country's cause. I would say of myself and of the Government what the Battle Song of the Civil War says of John Brown of Harper's Ferry:
They hanged him for a traitor, themselves the traitor crew;
But his soul goes marching on‡

Sir G. Schuster: I rise only to make one point which I should have made on the Motion "That the Clause stand part" even if all this interruption had not


occurred. This Clause deals with the salaries of teachers. We have had our attention diverted by the claim for equality, a principle with which I sympathise, but there is a much more important issue, and that is the whole question of the salaries and status of teachers, both men and women. I know that we cannot ask for a promise from my right hon. Friend to-day, but I want to put on record a strong request that when we get the McNair Report, which I understand we are likely to get very soon, we shall have an opportunity in the House to discuss the whole question of the salaries and status of the teaching profession. That is the key to the success of this scheme which we are starting.
I had not meant to say anything on the question that has been so much in controversy. I speak as one who is an unrepentant supporter of my hon. Friend in what he thought was right on Tuesday and in what the Government have done to-day. I should like to have had the opportunity to explain my reasons, but I am sure that you, Sir Charles, would find difficulty in allowing me the latitude allowed the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot allow that to be said. It is not true.

Sir G. Schuster: I meant no reflection on the Chair. May I put it in this way, that I would not feel myself qualified to run so near the limits as my hon. Friend did. I have not the same skill as he has. But I want to make one point because it enables me to pay a tribute to the teachers. I felt that it was not fair to ask me as a Member of this House to express a judgment on the Amendment on Tuesday, because I regarded it as outside the principle of the Bill, as a question on which I was not fully instructed, on which I had had no representation from my constituency, and on which I did not know their views. I felt that there were all sorts of implications as to which I desired to be fully informed before I gave a judgment. I have tried, and I know that there are a great many other Members who have tried, to inform myself on all the phases of the Education Bill. I have kept in constant touch with my constituency and have had meetings with teachers. I had a meeting only on Saturday with representatives of the National Union of Teachers. Nobody raised this

question. I think that a tribute should be paid to the teachers whom I have seen because, in all the discussions I have had with them, they have been interested in only one thing, that there should be as good as possible a system of education for the children, They have never raised with me the question of their own status. I do not say that this is a question that ought not to be raised, and I got up in order to put in my plea that at the right time it shall be raised and discussed in its full setting, with regard not only to women teachers, but to men teachers also, so that we may make the teaching profession one of the most honoured and attractive professions in the country.

Mr. A. Bevan: The other day when the Division took place I had not spoken in the Committee on the issue, because I felt that anything I wanted to say had already been said effectively by many other hon. Members. Something has happened since then which entitles me to make an observation on the principle at stake. The circumstances in which this Debate has taken place to-day have had one or two good consequences. It has given an enormous amount of publicity to this principle, and it has brought to the House many Members who I did not know were Members of the House. I am very glad to see them, and I think they ought to thank some of us for being the occasion of their presence. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister was not able to speak. I was not surprised because I am bound to remind the Committee that I used these words yesterday. I challenged the right hon. Gentleman to sustain certain arguments, and said:
He will not do so in the forthcoming Debate because he will not speak in it. The reason why he will not speak is that he does not know anything about the issues before the House, and he cannot talk about anything outside those issues."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1944; col. 1486, Vol. 398.]
I was perfectly convinced yesterday that we would be denied the benefit of the Prime Minister's eloquence to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did speak."] He did not speak. He only spoke in the same way as the hon. Member is speaking now. I want to challenge the President of the Board of Education on his central argument, and I think that I will be able to show that there is nothing in it. He says that if the principle of equal pay is ac-


cepted it will be administratively impossible to operate it, and that he resisted it on Tuesday for that reason.

Mr. Butler: I resisted it because I was not prepared to operate it. I think it is administratively possible to operate anything, but what I am not prepared to do is to operate this.

Mr. Bevan: I think I am within the recollection of the Committee that, both on Tuesday and to-day, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was administratively too difficult. What does that mean? I want hon. Members to face the implication of that statement. It was administratively too difficult because it would impose a limitation upon the Burnham Committee. Some hon. Members have said to-day, and the right hon. Gentleman has said, that it would he all right to discuss this matter as an abstract principle but not in connection with the Education Bill. If we carry it as an abstract principle, is it made administratively possible to operate it? What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? Suppose we decide that we are to have equality of pay in the public services: does the fact that we carry the principle abstractly mean that it becomes administratively possible to carry it out, but that if we carry it concretely it does not? I invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I have been put in a difficult position, and it would be much worse for me to undertake to do what I know I cannot conscientiously carry out."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 28th March, 1944; col. 1,389, Vol. 398.]
I think the Committee will agree with me that the point that I am putting is one of substance. We know how some hon. Members and right hon. Members are always ready to say: "I should like to discuss this matter some other time."
Oh, the brave music of a distant drum.
It is always the other battle and never this one; always some other time, and never this time. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee whether, if the House of Commons carried, as an abstract principle, the desirability of equality, he would accept the wishes of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
Hon. Members are proposing to vote for the Government on the ground that the principle of equality of pay ought not

to be attached to the Education Bill. They would support the principle in its general form. Right you are. I will put the matter from another angle. If hon. Members who propose to excuse themselves in that spurious fashion subsequently have the opportunity of voting for the general principle, and the House carries it—I again challenge the right hon. Gentleman —does the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee that he would resign rather than operate it? I await an answer. The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman is not honest with the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is being dishonest. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say that the right hon. Gentleman is not being honest with the Committee, because, in point of fact, he has referred over and over again to the administrative difficulties of operating this principle without giving a specific argument at all in favour of it. The answer is that he is against equality of pay. The real answer is that most hon. Members are against equality of pay, and that the Government are using their whole prestige as a Government against the principle of equality of pay. If not, why do they not accept the verdict? The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but he cannot answer.

Sir William Davison: If the hon. Member will give way I will answer for my right hon. Friend. What he said was that he could not conscientiously recommend the Committee to adopt a princple that he could not carry out. That was very fair. There was nothing dishonest about it. It was an honest reply.

Mr. Bevan: That is precisely the point I was making. If the House decides on the general principle that equality of pay is desirable, does it then become administratively possible? [Interruption.] We know the capacity of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) to rescue the right hon. Gentleman from a difficulty.

Sir W. Davison: I have done so.

Mr. Bevan: We are left with the position that hon. Members who say that they want to discuss this matter as an abstract principle are really excusing themselves on very spurious grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Do not point."]

Sir G. Schuster: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to me? I see that he is point-


ing to me. That is not exactly my position, but he was pointing at me. I can understand the position of a Member who said that he was going to vote for the principle of equal pay because he wanted the view of the Committee passed across to the Burnham Committee. That is quite a different thing from asking the Minister to take power to impose his view on the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman has not really illumined the matter any further. There is nothing that the Burnham Committee can do to make it more administratively possible to operate a principle voluntarily adopted by them than to operate it when the same principle is imposed upon that Committee by the Minister.

Sir G. Schuster: We are talking of the relations between the Minister and the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Bevan: I do not disagree with that for a moment, but I wanted it put on record that hon. Members who always want to discuss these matters at some other time are, in fact, running away. The second point is, that we are informed that the Burnham Committee would be allowed to adopt the principle for themselves. If the Burnham Committee, on application either from the local authorities or from the teachers' representatives, adopted the principle, we are informed that the Government would not resist it. Is that true? This is very important. Suppose the House of Commons has not adopted it, but the free use of the Burnham machinery undertakes it; we are informed on this side of the Committee, we have had assurances, that the Government will not resist the principle. Is that true? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am prepared to give way. I understand that the Minister is not going to reply to my question, so that on this side of the Committee we must conclude that the assurances that we have received are inaccurate. [AN HON. MEMBER: "There were no assurances at all from the Government."] We have received on this side of the Committee, and indeed it is implied in the whole argument of the Government, that it is not the House of Commons that should decide this matter but the free use of the negotiating machinery available to the teaching profession.

Mr. R. Morgan: I understand that the Bill gives mandatory power to the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Bevan: That is not the point that I am asking about. I am asking whether if the Burnham Committee reported that it was going to adopt this principle, the Government would then resist it. We have been told that the Government will accept it. This is a very serious matter, because in that case my charge of dishonesty is wholly established, seeing that the main reason given by the Minister is that he does not want to interfere with the Burnham Committee machinery. If, therefore, the Burnham Committee machinery adopts it and he resists it, then his argument is dishonest. [Interruption.] I will deal with the hon. Member in a moment, but that is one of the reasons why we are in this difficulty, because the National Union of Teachers has not done its job. If it had it would have got better conditions for its women teachers long ago.

The Temporary Chairman: We are dealing with Clause 82 as amended.

Mr. Bevan: That is the only thing I was talking about, about the Burnham Committee and the principle of equality of pay contained in the Clause. I know very well that Members opposite do not like it. The fact is that the Government have been dodging the whole matter. What does the right hon. Gentleman say in effect? We are informed that the N.U.T. have, in fact, asked over and over again for the same pay for women teachers, but they have not got that.

Viscountess Astor: Stop quarrelling, and let us get on.

Mr. Bevan: What, then, is the position that has been maintained by the right hon. Gentleman opposite? It is this, that if a county council decides on equality of pay the House of Commons can accept it, but the House of Commons must not decide it.

Mr. Bull: Even the Chairman has gone out.

Mr. Bevan: Now we have got a fresh Chairman. Members of the Government and the supporters of the Government have, ever since this incident started, denigrated the status of the House of Commons more than ever before. It will be


a remarkable encouragement to all the women in the Forces that we have opposite a lot of frivolous incompetents. We are now informed that if the employers' side of the Burnham Committee, who are the local authorities, decide to agree to the principle of equality of pay and go to the Burnham Committee and accept the application of the N.U.T. that we are to understand that the House of Commons will adopt it. So that a county council can adopt a principle which the House of Commons is denied the right to adopt. That is exactly where we are.
We subscribe 60 per cent. of the cost of education and the body which finds 40 per cent.—for teachers—can decide a principle that it is undesirable for the House of Commons to pronounce upon. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee. That is what the Prime Minister is telling the House of Commons. That is what the House of Commons is asked to accept. Furthermore, it goes even beyond this, because I have heard some of my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends on this side saying that such a decision here would make nonsense of 120 years of trade union history. It has been said that it is undesirable for the House of Commons to lay down principles or limitations which interfere with the free negotiating machinery evolved between employers and workpeople. What becomes of the miners' minimum wage; what becomes of hours of labour; what becomes of trade boards, of agricultural wages, the Catering Bill, and what becomes of the Minister of Labour's principle of the rate for the job? He shook his head very angrily the other day because his poor followers here are actually in favour of operating the thing he has been a propagandist about for years.
What is the matter with the Government? What is wrong? What is wrong is this: it is not that this is done in the wrong way, but that there are a large number of Members opposite who just do not want it at all. They want cheap woman labour. They want to perpetuate the inequality of the sexes, because it provides cheap woman labour and keeps down the level of the rate for man labour too. The reason why the industrial organisations of this country are in favour of equality for women is that they do not want women to cut down the men's rates,

which might happen if the labour market becomes depressed as it has been before. Therefore, we on this side of the House stand by this principle, because it is an umbrella we put over our heads against the prospect of industrial depression. The Government will not have it. I say therefore that on any count the Committee ought to-day to vote against the Government on this matter because, and this applies particularly to the Labour Party, it is not we who have made this a Vote of Confidence at all. It is the Government who have done that. Certainly the Labour Ministers in the Government have approved it, but then I am beginning to wonder to what extent Labour Ministers are exerting any influence at all over Government policy. They have run away in this instance as they have run away over all the others. I say it would be a very good thing for the vitality of representative institutions in Great Britain, certainly a source of encouragement for millions of men and women, if the House of Commons exerted itself, and on this particular occasion voted against the Government, and said that this much-needed reform must be put on the Statute Rook, and that all organisations should adapt themselves to it afterwards.

Viscountess Astor: All I want to say is that although we feel very strongly about this matter we know perfectly well that no speech in this Committee will change the mind of the Government, so I want the Committee, for its own sake, to divide and let Ministers get on with their work and with the Bill.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green): I will not stand between the Committee and the Division for more than a minute. This Vote of Confidence is being discussed in at atmosphere quite unworthy of a Vote of Confidence. Here we are, at a most critical moment in the war, with our Forces about to hurl themselves into the final battle against the enemy, with our Allies, the neutrals, and our enemies asking where this nation stands. Here are practically all Members of the House anxious to go into the Lobby and loyally express our confidence in the Prime Minister and our gratitude for all that he has done.

Captain Cobb: May I ask with what part of the Clause the hon. Member is dealing?

Mr. Baxter: I am not concerned with the interruptions or lamentations of a party hack, such as the hon. and gallant gentleman who has just spoken. We are being herded into the Lobby. The interruption by the hon. and gallant Gentleman only emphasises the relevancy of what I have to say. We are being drummed into the Lobby to-day, when we wanted to go there in quite another spirit. This Committee, rightly or wrongly, took a decision the other day on something which was selected by the Chair for debate. The only terms now offered to us who voted against it are these: Without argument by the Government we must eat our words. That, I think, is not worthy of the Government. The public so often say that the House consists of a lot of rubber stamps. The Government are saying to the public, "You are quite right, and we will prove it." Again I say that that is unworthy. May I ask the Leader of House, as I would ask the Prime Minister if he were here, whether, in order to add dignity to this whole occasion, and to safeguard the dignity of the House itself, he will, on behalf of the Government, say that it is necessary—I know that this point has been already made—for this Education Bill to proceed without the complication of the Amendment which was carried the other day, but that the Government are impressed by. the carrying of this Amendment, that they will bear it closely in mind, consider it in Cabinet, and go as far as they can to tell us that what this House decides the Government do not throw aside without some consideration? Will the Leader of the House then say, in a sentence or two, that he asks us to go into the Lobby to express our confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government? Even if he has to break some rule of the Committee to do it, let him say that, and be called to Order. That will raise the whole tone of this Debate from the trivial level to which it has descended.

Sir Richard Acland: rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Sir R. Acland: It is all very well for hon. Members to say "Divide," but there happen to be exactly seven hon. Members in this House who have had the courage to declare over and over again,

quite unequivocally, that they have no confidence in this Government, not on one individual issue or another, but as a matter of consistent principle. As well as those seven of us, there is a number of hon. Members who from time to time pretend to oppose the Government when they are in fact supporting it, and a certain number of others who pretend to support it when they in fact oppose it. But there are only seven in this House who quite steadily and consistently oppose the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do the electors of Barnstaple oppose the Government?"]

The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing about Barnstaple in this Clause.

Commander Agnew: rose—

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. and gallant Member want to put a point of Order?

Commander Agnew: No, it is not a point of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then perhaps we might allow the hon. Baronet to continue his speech.

Sir R. Acland: I cannot give exact figures, but the seven of us to whom I am referring represent something like half the electors of this country to-day. [Laughter.] Laugh if you will, but it is a plain statement of fact that in one by-election after another—

The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing about by-elections in this Clause. The hon. Baronet must restrict his remarks to the Clause, as other hon. Members have done.

Sir R. Acland: We know that we are speaking on behalf of far more people than is suggested by our numbers here, and we say, quite plainly, that we have no confidence in the basic principles on Which this Government operate. [Interruption.] I am willing to give way to the Chair, and I have done so, but it would expedite matters if the functions of the Chair were not usurped by so many other Members. Of these principles this Clause is just one of the symptoms. What have we had in these last few days? The Committee, after hearing the sort of argument which the President of the Board of Education has put before it, decides that it wants equal pay for men and women teachers. The Government


come to the Committee now, and say, "You cannot have equal pay for men and women teachers." The point which I want to put, which nobody has put up to now, is that it is not an accident that this Government say, "You cannot have equal pay for men and women teachers." It would be impossible to grant equal pay for men and women teachers without leading on inexorably to a position in which you would have to challenge the wrong principles which this Government exist to maintain, and the wrong principles which will he made the basis of peace under this Government.
There is an inexorable connection between these things. You cannot start equal pay for men and women teachers without knowing that you have to grant equal pay throughout the whole of the Civil Service within a very short time. Meanwhile, the business of government becomes more and more tangled up with the whole of industry and that will happen no matter which party is in power. Therefore, you cannot give it throughout the whole of the Civil Service without knowing that you are committed to equal pay for men and women throughout the whole of our national life. I do not want to argue this point at great length, but I am going to take enough time to state what I believe to be the views and the principles of a very large section of the men and women who are fighting and working in this war effort.
If we find ourselves up against this principle of unequal pay for men and women, and if we want to get to the condition in which we have equal pay for men and women, we must be prepared to examine the principles on which our forefathers thought it right that men should have greater pay than women. Let us just consider this. The unequal pay of men and women is based on the principle that it is the individual responsibility of the male to carve out of the community, by his individual efforts, enough money or—[Interruption]. I do not think the mood of the Committee now, or at the time when some other hon. Members were speaking, does this House any credit. [Interruption.] To turn these matters into occasions for hilarity is not a credit to hon. Members. To go back to the point, it has been assumed in the past, in considering all wages, that the male is, individually,

responsible for carving out a family income for himself and his family, and it has been assumed that, when a female comes into the labour market, she is to be treated as someone who will either remain single all her life, and will therefore have no dependants, or she will, quickly, creep under the protecting shoulder of some male who will provide the necessary money for her and for the family. These are the principles which have been accepted in the past, and upon which the party opposite now wants to continue to act. Unfortunately, the facts of the situation do not fit these principles any longer. We have to advance to new principles, and this is a point upon which I do not want to spend too much time because I think it is conceded by everyone who has given sufficient attention to these problems. The principle of equal pay for men and women is absolutely dependent upon the acceptance of family allowances. When I say family allowances, I do not mean a trivial—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think there is nothing about family allowances in this Clause, and it is really carrying illustrations too far for hon. Members to bring in anything of that sort just now.

Sir R. Acland: If that is your view, Mr. Williams, it will necessarily take me some little time to explain—

The Deputy-Chairman: . My Ruling is that family allowances are outside the scope of the Clause, and therefore the hon. Member should not discuss them now.

Miss Rathbone: May I ask whether on a Clause about equal pay, the hon. Member is not allowed to show how equal pay can be made practical policy?

The Deputy-Chairman: That may be the hon. Lady's opinion. It is my opinion that the question does not arise on this Clause.

Sir R. Acland: I am not going to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but it surely is the fact that, as long as there is any trace of the past in the minds of this Committee, you are acting on the old principle that the male is responsible for carving out an income which will support the family; and as long as that principle is accepted as fundamental, it is perfectly childish to talk about equal pay for men and women. Either you are


going to run this country on the basis of continuing into the future this principle, which seemed good enough to our ancestors, or you are going to accept the new principle of equal pay for men and women. If you try to do both these things, if you go forward while retaining any trace of the idea that each individual male has this continuing responsibility, you will find yourselves in this inescapable situation—that all unmarried adults and all childless couples will be grossly overpaid, while all parents of families will be grossly underpaid. [HON. MEMBERS "Family allowances."] Speaking as a Socialist I accept absolutely the inescapable rule that you cannot eat your cake and have it. If you are going to give women more and more, to bring them up to the level of men, simply treating men and women as equals, that must mean, if you leave it all by itself, that there is sufficient available for the support of families, as such.
Although it has been a little difficult for me, I hope I have established the point. In fact, it comes to a good deal more than this. You are going to embark upon equal pay for men and women with its inescapable commitments of family allowances, but you are, in fact, engaged upon a complete re-adjustment and re-allocation of the incomes of the entire population of this country.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot enlarge on the whole question of the incomes of the population, and I must ask him to keep to the point of the Clause.

Mrs. Tate (Frame): As the hon. Member is evincing such a passionate interest in favour of women receiving equal pay with that of men, can he say why none of his party was here to support the Amendment?

Sir R. Acland: At the moment I am saying what are some of the inescapable consequences of equal pay.

Mrs. Tate: The inescapable past.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. Would it be possible to have a little more silence in the Committee, as many of us are anxious to listen to this really epoch-making speech by the hon. Member in possession of the Committee? Would it be possible to listen in silence, as it is of great value and importance to us all, to hear what he has to say?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not possible for me to judge the value of the speech, but probably it would help if we had a little more silence.

Sir R. Acland: On this little issue of equal pay for men and women, many people would have expected the Government to say, "If the House is against us, we will accept the verdict and carry out the policy according to the democratic wishes of the House." But this little issue has been elevated to the status of a Vote of Confidence in the Government, and in my view one is entitled to show how this apparently trivial incident is linked inescapably to the bad principles which the party opposite exist to maintain. In treating this as a Vote of Confidence, we welcome it as such, treat it as such and intend to vote against the Government precisely because we have no confidence whatever in a Government who maintain these principles. I believe, the matter having been raised on such an issue, it is relevant to show, as I think I was showing, that this absolutely trivial—[Interruption]—I am sorry, I withdraw that—this relatively small point, does lead on to the necessity of making a complete re-adjustment of the incomes of millions of citizens, some of which, particularly those of parents, will need to be adjusted relatively upwards, and some of which, particularly those of young men and young women who are not married or who are childless, will need an adjustment which will be relatively downwards.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is getting back again on to the wider ground. I ask the hon. Member to realise that this is a rather small point and not an occasion on which to open up a whole series of platform speeches.

Sir R. Acland: This is just my complaint. The House of Commons, which is supposed to determine the very principles on Which our country shall be governed, is confronted, over and over again, with a series of relatively unimportant little issues, which are put before it in such a way that, without any disrespect to the Chair the Chair is obliged to rule that the issue shall be discussed within blinkers. Any attempt to bring us face to face with fundamental principles which underlie the trivial little issues we are discussing day after day is invariably frustrated by the way in which these


issues are presented. I am only going to say this in conclusion—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. A. Bevan: On a point of Order. Obviously this Committee cannot be expected to sit and listen to any speech silently without interjection and in perfect order but surely an hon. Member of this House representing a minority, and unpopular, view in the House is entitled to the protection of the Chair against the misbehaviour of hon. Members opposite who are trying to rescue their own Ministers, some of whom are hardly ever here, from embarrassment.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has asked me whether the hon. Baronet needs protection. I can assure him that, as far as I am concerned, I ask the Committee to allow the hon. Member to finish his speech with quietness and attention.

Sir R. Acland: I thank you, Mr. Williams, for the protection which I have received at your hands and I appreciate the Ruling which you have been obliged to give because of the particular way this comes before us. I only want to point out again that the House of Commons is getting into the dangerous position of endlessly discussing little incidents without coming to a decision on wider issues. The reason why the Conservative Party is unable to give equal pay to women and men teachers is because, to do that would throw into issue the whole problem of the distribution of national income and would expose to a searching examination a whole set of principles which the party opposite do not want to be exposed. It would bring under challenge the whole question of the distribution of incomes by which some people, without reference to service or needs, are drawing pounds and pounds per day, while next to nothing is available to mothers of families and children, because of this inequality of pay and the absence of decent treatment for children generally—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member really must keep within the Clause and not use this illustration for that purpose.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not the fact that this is not the Conservative Party but the National Government?

Sir R. Acland: I thank you, Mr. Williams, for the liberty you have given me, and the Committee for their considerate hearing of what I have had to say. I would hardly be able to sum it up again without being called to Order, but I have made my point.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Kilmarnook): I rise, if it is still in Order and not out of taste, to refer to Clause 82, to ask my right hon. Friend a question because I want to come back to his original speech and particularly that of the speech made by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). Speaking, I presume, with the full authority of the National Union of Teachers the hon. Member said to my right hon. Friend, "I hope we shall never see this Clause back in the Bill." The President of the Board said just now that he had brought nothing into this Bill which was not fully thought out before, so I presume that this Clause was brought in with the full knowledge of a very important contracting power, the National Union of Teachers. It is really a travesty if we have to go back and think out again a Clause of the Bill after all the trouble that my right hon. Friend has taken to get it inserted as Clause 82. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) that this Clause gives the President of the Board authority because he pays 60 per cent. of the money and entitles him to say to local authorities and teachers "The House of Commons takes this or that view." Speaking from some inside knowledge, I think the President of the Board has given guidance to the Burnham Committee in the past. There is nothing novel in that. Obviously he does it with great discretion. If this were the place I would give more precise examples. Therefore, I do not think the President of the Board ought to be quite so cavalier in dismissing the obligations which rest on him because, after all, we pay 60 per cent. and he has placed local education authorities under his direction and control.
I want to raise this point and I am very glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here. I have already said that this Bill will not work on its present financial basis. I cannot go into that question at this time but what is to happen? This Amendment, as far as I am con-


cerned, had nothing whatever to do with the issues outside education. That is why I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was dead right. I do not believe you can make this Bill work unless you have a greater incentive to bring in women teachers. Secondly, I do not believe it will work unless you change the relation between central and local finance. Supposing next week we have a Division on that matter. I personally hope that my right hon. Friend is going to find accommodations beforehand. But I warn the Government on this point, that if we conscientiously believe that Clause 93 might militate against the success of the Bill and there is a Division of 117–116—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss that here.

Mr. Lindsay: No, Mr. Williams, I realise I have gone as far as I can. At any rate there is the issue and I wish the President were here although I know he has to get a cup of tea—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): My right hon. Friend has sat in here from the commencement of the Debate and neither he nor I, have had lunch or tea to-day.

Mr. Lindsay: I am in the same position. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to convey these remarks to the President? I am not worried at the moment. Unlike other hon. Members I am going to do the absurd thing and give a Vote of Confidence in the Government on the deletion of this Clause, but I am, at the moment, discussing a Clause which is before the Committee. I say that if the President is going to treat this Clause in the way in which his speech indicated to-day, he must expect further Debate and I hope that between now and then he will consider some of the very powerful arguments raised by my hon. Friend to-day which have nothing at all to do with the Vote of Confidence but which deal with education and local government. Because I hope that may shorten any further Debate, which I certainly want to do, I will sit down at this point.

Mr. R. Morgan: There are many of us in this Commitee who are very anxious to get on with the Bill. This Clause has been discussed from every possible angle.
Would it be in Order now to move that the Question be now put?

Mr. Bevan: rose—

Mr. Morgan: Mr. Morgan rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and there being no Member willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. W. J. Brown: I rise to say that I intend to vote for the Government to-day, and to state the reasons that lead me to do so. In the first place, I take the view that the promoters of the Amendment, on Tuesday, were not well advised in the ground that they chose to fight upon. The Amendment which was then moved not merely supplemented, but superseded, the ordinary wage negotiation machinery of the teaching profession. Now, while I hold that this House is properly a Court of Appeal when ordinary wage machinery fails to solve the problem, I do not think it should be appealed to until the ordinary wage machinery has first been tried. In the second place, I doubt whether this Bill was the appropriate occasion for the raising of the general issue of equal pay for equal work. That issue is one that does not affect only the teaching profession; it affects all State civil servants, and local government servants, as well as the teaching profession, and it has reactions throughout industry. In the third place, I regard the moving of this Amendment as putting, on the doorstep of the President of the Board of Education, a baby which did not properly belong to him. First, last, and all the time, this issue of equal pay is not a Board of Education issue. It is a Treasury issue. And it is the Treasury with whom we have to deal on this issue of equal pay.
For those reasons, I take the view that the promoters of the Amendment were not well advised in their choke of ground. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was in Order."] A thing can be in Order, but it can, at the same time, be ill advised; and my submission is that that choice of ground


was ill-advised. But if the promoters of the Amendment were ill-advised, I do not think the Government emerge, with any greater credit. Why were we discussing this the other day? Because Government after Government declined to take any notice of the House of Commons on this equal pay issue. Twice within the last 20 years this House, by a majority vote, has declared itself in favour of equal pay for men and women in the public service. If we were discussing this the other day, the only reason was that Government after Government has ignored what the House of Commons has had to say on this issue. If we are discussing it to-day—and we are—the main reason is that there were absent from this House the other day about 200 Tory Members of Parliament, who come here only when the Government are in danger through their own previous absenteeism.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not in Order now.

Mr. Guy: Why was the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) not present on that occasion?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member knows, why does he ask me?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we must let this point drop.

Mr. Brown: We are asked to-day to undo what was done the other day. We are asked to cast out of the Bill an Amendment which was imported into it two days ago. I wish very much that the Government had not asked us to do this. There were other ways in which the Government could have handled the situation. There is, on the Order Paper, a Motion dealing with equal pay in the public service, signed by a large number of Members. I shall not discuss the merits of that Motion, but I want to point out that, if the Government had desired to take note of the sense of the House the other day, it could have made a statement something like this.

Mr. Guy: It would have shown where the hon. Member was.

Mr. Brown: I do not mind the hon. Member's earnestness; I merely deplore his inarticulateness.

Mr. Guy: That is the Civil Service all over.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) will be allowed to go on with his speech.

Major Proctor: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) did not tell us why he was not here the other day to put that point of view, which would have been effective then.

Mr. Brown: The answer is very simple—

Sir Patrick Hannon: On a point of Order. Are we not in danger, in this present atmosphere, of making ourselves perfectly ridiculous in the eyes of the country? I think the hon. Member should be allowed to develop his case.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already said that the hon. Member should be allowed to make his speech without interruptions.

Mr. Brown: I do not mind the interruptions, provided I can hear what they are, so that I can answer them. I was challenged on why I was not present when the vote was taken the other day—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not in Order.

Mr. Brown: In that case I will take the opportunity of imparting, in private to the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) the information which I am forbidden to give him in public. I was suggesting that the Government would have taken another line. I was saying that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by many Members, in favour of equal pay for men and women in the public service, and that if the Government had desired simultaneously to preserve their position on the Education Bill, and, at the same time, to take notice of the view of the House, what they could have done was to make a statement something like this: "This issue of equal pay is wider than the teaching profession. We will therefore arrange, before the Report Stage of the Education Bill is reached, for a discussion on the principle of equal pay, either on the Motion which appears on the Order Paper, or in some other way. The House will determine its view about that issue of its principle, and in accordance with its decision we will then come back to the Education Bill, and qualify it or amend it to make it correspond with the sense


of the House." If that had been done, there would have been no Parliamentary crisis at all to-day. The Government could have taken account of the view of the House, and progress on the Education Bill would not have been delayed. [An HON. MEMBER: "The democratic method."] That would have been not merely the democratic method but, I submit, the commonsense method of dealing with the situation created the other day. But the Government take another line. They tell us we must eat our own words, and regurgitate our own deeds, as a condition of demonstrating confidence in them.

Mr. Reakes: Is the hon. Member prepared to eat his words?

Mr. Brown: I do not know which is more embarrassing in this Committee, one's friends or one's opponents. It seems to me that the line the Government are asking us to take raises two issues. The first is the freedom of the House of Commons to express itself on a domestic issue such as this. And the second is whether the line the Government ask us to adopt, that is, to treat this as a Vote of Confidence, will in fact secure the end that they desire. It is not the case that the present Government rest upon the concensus of opinion in the House on domestic issues—

The Deputy-Chairman: That might have been in Order in the previous Debate but it is not in Order on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brown: The very decision to ask us to delete the Clause is based upon certain reasons—not my reasons but reasons stated by the Government. One was that they wanted to restore the position of the Education Bill to what it was before Tuesday, and the other was that the right hon. Gentleman wanted a demonstration of confidence from the House.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member to try to narrow it down to the actual Clause itself, which most other speakers have succeeded in doing.

Mr. Brown: I wish above all things to conform to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but, if I am in Order, I want to submit that one of the reasons given us, by the Prime Minister himself, for the decision

to make the Motion we are now discussing, was for the purpose of demonstrating confidence in the Government—"fortifying the Government," to use his own phrase. The Government cannot be fortified by political doses of "M. and B." The mere act of compelling us to go into the Lobby—

The Deputy-Chairman: It was ruled at the beginning that the Debate on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" must be confined to the Clause as amended.

Mr. Brown: One of our difficulties is the conjunction of two things which have no necessary connection and which land us in a very awkward situation. It was not I who proposed that there should be a Vote of Confidence, it was the Prime Minister. It was not on my Amendment that this issue arose. But the conjunction of the Prime Minister's statement, plus the treatment of the issue as if there were only educational considerations involved in the discussion, puts the Committee in an extraordinarily difficult position. I doubt very much whether confidence in the Government will be restored by driving us into the Lobby upon this Amendment.
I should like to ask for an assurance from the Leader of the House. I asked earlier whether we should have an opportunity, after Easter, of a Debate on the equal pay issue in its wider connotation. I got a non-committal reply. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman now, assuming that the Committee goes into the Lobby in support of the Motion—

The Deputy-Chairman: The Leader of the House would not be in Order in answering that.

Mr. Brown: Again, I am in your hands, Mr. Williams, but I think, if it were someone else, for instance the Prime Minister, who was putting that question to the Leader of the Opposition, or vice versa, means would be found of providing an answer. The point is a simple one. I want to know whether I can vote for the Government on this Amendment, without prejudicing the future of the equal pay issue. I trust that that is in Order.

Mr. Butler: I wonder if the hon. Member was in the Committee when the Prime Minister spoke. I think the Prime Minister's words provide an adequate answer to what he says.

Mr. Brown: In that case the Prime Minister must have been out of Order, but in Order, or out of Order, if the Prime Minister did say that a discussion of the general issue of equal pay would not be affected by the result of to-day's Vote on this Clause, I am very much obliged. And I understand the President of the Board of Education to say that that is so.

Mr. Butler: I must refer the hon. Member to the Prime Minister's words. He had better acquaint himself with the Prime Minister's words, and I think he will be satisfied.

Mr. Brown: The unfortunate point is that we vote on this to-day, and HANSARD comes out to-morrow, I wish the President of the Board of Education would be a little more co-operative, or I may revise my decision to vote with the Government.

Mr. Butler: The Prime Minister intervened for a short time to say that if he were still in his position, he would answer the question at a later date. That appeared to be satisfactory to the Committee. I think it is a pity the hon. Member was not in the Committee.

Mr. Brown: I take a little unkindly that last observation. All of us leave the Chamber at various points for certain reasons. I should not criticise the right hon. Gentleman for going out to get a bit of lunch, and I hope he will not criticise me. My wrath is rising momentarily. I feel that we cannot possibly vote the Government out of office on this issue. That is not the popular view, but it is my view. I am received with massive silence on the other side, and with an obvious lack of applause on this side. I take the view that if the Prime Minister, however wrongly—and I think it is wrongly—says he will regard this as a Vote of Confidence, the issue for me is whether I am prepared to turn the Government out, on the eve of the Second Front, on an issue of this magnitude. The answer, as far as I am concerned, is "No." I shall vote for the Government, but I beg them never again to put us in this position, because it ought to be possible for the House of Commons to express itself on matters of this kind, and to have some notice taken of what we say. Later, I imagine, we shall have a Debate on equal pay. When it comes, I

hope the Government will recognise that no fewer than three times the House has given a verdict on this question, and when the next discussion comes—if it ends, as I think it will, in another vote in favour of equal pay—I hope this Parliament will not be reduced to a complete farce by the Government making that vote a Vote of Confidence in the Government. I do not take the view that they will, but I am prepared to give them the opportunity of proving that they will not. For all those reasons I shall vote with the Government to-day. But that involves no abandonment on my part of support of the principle of equal pay, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity of dealing with that question, with all its implications, on the Motion that stands in my name and that of 160 other Members.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I propose to give some reasons why this Clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill, and confine myself to that issue. I have some special reason for taking that step because I signed the Amendment that was carried last Tuesday—I had other reasons for doing that. One of the principal reasons is that I have represented here for 20 years a University which was the first of British Universities to give in all its degrees and examinations complete equality to women with men. For that reason I feel personally compelled to make this stand. Besides the plea of justice, which ought to be sufficient in itself, there is another which is perhaps equally strong, namely, the critical necessity to attract teachers of whom the large majority must be women. What does this Bill depend upon? It surely depends upon the recruitment of teachers in sufficient numbers to make the Bill work. It is probable that we shall require 70,000 more women teachers to operate the Bill. With the present position of women teachers can we expect that they will come to this service with any kind of enthusiasm and in any numbers? I gave the right hon. Gentleman a few weeks ago an instance of the payment of women teachers. A lady has been 20 years teacher in an elementary school. She is doing admirable work, and her salary is £3 6s. 8d. a week. If she stays on another 10 years she will get the maximum pension of 25s. a week, which is less than 1s. a week for every year of service. That is the current Burnham


scale. Whatever may be the machinery for altering such scales, they ought to be altered at once. Is it possible to have contentment among teachers with such a system of pay? Although I put my name down to the Amendment, I am going to vote for the Government because I realise that the threat of a General Election if the amended Clause is not deleted by the

Division No. 14.
AYES.



Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Barr, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Stokes, R. R.


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Kendall, W. D.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Bowles, F. G.
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Buchanan, G.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Oliver, G. H.



Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)
Mr. McGovern and Mr. Hugh


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Sloan, A.
Lawson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Burton, Col. H. W.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Adams, Major S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)


Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Cadogan, Maj. Sir E.
Ellis, Sir G.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Caine, G. R. Hall
Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.


Agnew, Comdr. P. G.
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Emery, J. F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Alexander, Bg.-Gn. Sir W. (G'g'w, C.)
Carver, Colonel W. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cary, R. A.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Errington, Squadron-Leader E


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h, Univ.)
Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Apsley, Lady
Channon, H.
Etherton, Ralph


Aske, Sir R. W.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Charleton, H. C.
Everard, Sir W. Lindsay


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Chater, D.
Fermoy, Lord


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Fildes Sir H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Christle, J. A.
Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.


Baillie, Major Sir A. W. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S. (Epping)
Foot, D. M.


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fox, Squadron-Leader Sir G. W. G.


Barnes, A. J.
Cluse, W. S.
Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cobb, Captain E. C.
Fyfe, Major Sir D. P. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Colegate, W. A.
Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Colman, N. C. D.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Conant, Major R. J. E.
Gates, Major E. E.


Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. {P'tsm'h)
Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M. (N'flk, N.)
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)


Beech, Major F. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gibbins, J.


Beechman, N. A.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Gibson, Sir C. G.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cove, W. G.
Glanville, J. E.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir Stafford
Gledhill, G.


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Gluckstein, Lt.-Col. L. H.


Bernays, Captain R. H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glyn, Sir R. G. C.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Goldie, N. B.


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Culverwell, C. T.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Blair, Sir R.
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.


Blaker, Sir R.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Granville, E. L.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Boothby, R. J. G.
De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.


Bossom, A. C.
De la Bère, R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Gretton, J. F.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Denville, Alfred
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Digby, Capt. K. S. D. W.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dobbie, W.
Grigg, Rt. Hon. Sir P. J. (Cardiff, E.)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Dodd, J. S.
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Doland, G. F.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. J. G. (H'dern's)
Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.
Groves, T. E.


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Guest, Lt.-Col. Hn. O. (Camberwell)


Broad, F. A.
Drewe, C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Guy, W. H.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Brown, Brig.-Gen, H. C. (Newbury)
Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)
Hammersley, S. S.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Dunn, E.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.


Bull, B. B.
Eccles, D. M.
Haslam, Henry


Bullock, Capt. M.
Ede, J. C.
Helmore, Air Commodore W.


Burden, T. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Committee is so serious at a time of crisis involving the very existence of this country, that no one in his senses would wish to see it carried out.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 425.

Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Manningnam-Buller, R. E.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Shute, Col. Sir J. J.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Marshall, F.
Silkin, L.


Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Martin, J. H.
Simmonds, Sir O. E


Hepburn, Major P. C. T. Buchan-
Mathers, G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Hepworth, J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)
Medlicott, Colonel Frank
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hewiett, T. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Hicks, E. G.
Messer, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Higgs, W. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Snadden, W. McN.


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Somerset, Sir T.


Holdsworth, Sir H.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Molson, A. H. E.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Holmes, J. S.
Montague, F.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hopkinson, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Storey, S.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Hubbard, T. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Studholme, Captain H. G.


Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M. F


Hulbert, Wing-Commander N. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Suirdale, Viscount


Hume, Sir G. H.
Muff, G.
Summers, G. S.


Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Isaacs, G. A.
Nall, Sir J.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Jackson, W. F.
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)


James, Wing-Com. A. (Well'borough)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


James, Admiral Sir W. (Ports'th, N.>
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Teellng, Flight-Lieut. W.


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Nield, Major B. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Nunn, W.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'mpton)


Jennings, R.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Jewson, P. W.
O'Neill Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Thorne, W.


Johnstone, Rt. Hon. H. (Mid'sbro W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Paling, Rt Hon. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Lt.-Col. C. N.


Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Parker, J.
Tomlinson, G.


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Touche, G. C.


Keatinge, Major E. M.
Pearson, A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Keeling, E. H.
Peat, C. U.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr R. L.


Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turton, R. H.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Petherick, M.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon, F. W.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pilkington, Captain R. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.


Lees-Jones, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Watkins, F. C.


Leigh, Sir J.
Power, Sir J. C.
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh Cen.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Levy, T.
Price, M. P.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Lewis, O.
Proctor, Major H. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Liddall, W. S.
Purbrick, R.
Wells, Sir S. Richard


Lindsay, K. M.
Pym, L. R.
Weston, W. Garfield


Linstead, H. N.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Lipson, D. L.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Little, Sir E. Graham- (London Univ.)
Ramsden, Sir E.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Llewellin, Col. Rt. Hon. J. J.
Rankin, Sir R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lloyd, C. E. (Dudley)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Ritson, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Loftus, P. C.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (Mitcham)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Windsor, W.


Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.


Lyons, Major A. M.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Oliver
Rowlands, G.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Mabane, Rt. Hon. W.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C. (York)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Woodburn, A.


McCallum, Major D.
Salt, E. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Woolley, Major W. E.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sandys, E. D.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


McEntee, V. La T.
Savory, Professor D. L.
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Wright, Group Capt. J. (Erdington)


McKie, J. H.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)
York, Major C.


MacLaren, A.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'[...])
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


McNeil, H.
Selley, Sir H. R.



Magnay, T.
Shakespeare, Sir G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Maitland, Sir A.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)
Mr. James Stuart nad Mr.


Makins, Brig. Gen. Sir E.
Shephard, S.
Whiteley.

CLAUSE 83.—(Compulsory purchase of land and other dealings in land by local education authorities.)

Sir Frank Sanderson: I beg to move, in page 6o, line 3, after "unless," to insert:
sanction has been given under the Town Planning Acts or schemes made thereunder and also.
Before moving this Amendment may I be permitted to express not only my appreciation, but the appreciation of the whole Committee, that my right hon. Friend has survived all storms, and that he is not only sitting in his place, but looks ready again to face the ordeals of this Bill which he is conducting so efficiently and so brilliantly. I heartily incorporate in these words his Parliamentary Secretary. In moving the Amendment I propose—

Mr. Clement Davies: On a point of Order. Could the hon. Member's remarks upon this Bill about which we are all so keen wait until those who are not interested at all in the Bill have left the Chamber.

The Chairman: The hon. Member might now continue.

Sir F. Sanderson: In moving the Amendment I propose to give a classic example of brevity. The reason why I move it is because I think it is generally accepted throughout the Committee that town planning control is necessary, particularly as in post-war conditions short lived structures must be necessary. It is for that reason, which explains itself, that I move the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: In the first place I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) for the very kind words he used about my right hon. Friend and myself. May I say that we duly appreciate them, and after a day with no food they come as rare and refreshing fruit. This Amendment appears to be in a somewhat peculiar place if it is to have any really great effect, because although I imagine the hon. Member would have wished to include all new schools in his proposal, it would in fact, in the place where he has inserted it, apply only to new auxiliary schools. Quite clearly the principle, if it is to apply to any type of school, must apply to all. We cannot therefore accept this Amendment

in its present place. With regard to the general issue which it raises, in the past there has undoubtedly been a failure, on occasion, of planning authorities and education authorities to consult together in arranging the layouts of their districts and making provision for the school places that are required. Fortunately, as a result of the conversations between my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Town and Country Planning we are arranging that there shall be a better liaison than hitherto between these two authorities where they are not the same authority for a district. In these circumstances we do not think that either the principle or the words are necessary for inclusion in this Clause, and in any event it would not really carry out the hon. Member's wishes if we inserted the words in the place where he asks us to.

Sir F. Sanderson: I very much appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, and in view of the explanation he has given I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir Joseph Nall (Manchester, Hulme): Before that is done I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, regarding his statement that arrangements are being made for better liaison between the authorities concerned, what machinery is available for ensuring that it is carried out all over the country. It is one thing to have it laid down in the appropriate place. This may not be an appropriate place: a which to put it, but surely when he accepts the principle that the planning authorities must be brought into this matter, and that it should not be left to the local education authority to put schools wherever they like, there ought to be some statutory provision about who has to be consulted.

Mr. Ede: Where a planning authority is the county borough it is, of course, both the planning authority and the education authority and there should be no difficulty about complete liaison, though sometimes in the past it has been lacking. Steps must be taken to put that right. With regard to the county council areas, the county council is now a planning authority, and the schemes that are being prepared for the county will be within the knowledge of the county council, but apart from that, I understand that instructions are being sent out to the town planning authorities to make quite sure that


in the layout of their districts they shall take the local education committee into their confidence.

Sir J. Nall: I am sorry to persist this, but what will happen where a county borough wishes to provide a special school in a county council area? It might not be appropriate to put some special schools within the area of the borough concerned. Therefore, they have to erect a property outside their borough area and within the county planning area. Is the county planning authority to have any jurisdiction in the matter, or is the county borough to be able to do what it likes outside its own borders?

Mr. Ede: In any event the authority proposing to build the school will have to give three months' notice of its intention to erect the school. That has to be duly advertised, in accordance with methods prescribed by the Bill. In addition it is usually the case that where the local authority is attempting to buy land outside its own area, it ascertains what are the town-planning restrictions on that land. In that way, it will get into touch with the town-planning authority. If it found that the land which it wanted was in an area so zoned as not to be available for school purposes without some amending planning order, it would act accordingly.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel Sir John Shute: I beg to move, in page 60, line 29, at the end, to add:
(4) If with the approval of the Minister the persons proposing to establish in any area any such school or college as is referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Section or to effect alterations to any such school or college existing in any area so request, the local education authority for that area shall exercise the powers conferred upon them by this Section for the purchase of any land required for the purpose of such establishment or of effecting such alterations and shall (at the option of the said persons) either convey to them the land so purchased for a consideration not exceeding the amount of the cost incurred by the local education authority in effecting such purchase or execute a lease of the said land to them at a yearly rent of an amount not less than one nor more than two per centum of the cost so incurred by the local education authority.
I do not think there will be any necessity to elaborate the case for this Amendment, because what we desire is so

evident. I will merely point out that what we desire to have in the new Act is a Clause somewhat similar to that which was in the Education Act, 1936. This Amendment is designed simply to enable those who wish to set up what we call non-provided schools, and to acquire land for the purpose, to have the right, if they come across a rather recalcitrant owner, to call upon the local education authority to use the compulsory powers which the authority possess. I cordially associate myself and those with whom I work with the comments which have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), and I wish to say how glad we are that we still have to deal with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Education and his most able Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Stokes: Under the Clause it is open to the education authority to apply for compulsory purchase; there is nothing to oblige them to do so. Suppose the education authority insist on an extension; we take it that there is an obligation to acquire the necessary site. With regard to the 1936 Act schools, the whole thing is governed, now that the provisions of the 1936 Act are repealed, by the Third Schedule, which, so far as land is concerned, deals only with what is known as the Liverpool Act. Where there is already agreement for a school, we take it that this Clause means also that the 1936 Act Schools will have the land which is necessary for their building provided. Finally, as a matter of information, we should like to know if it is the intention and the meaning of the Government to apply this Clause to brand-new schools, which at present do not come under the Act.

Mr. Ede: The 1936 Act for the first time gave local education authorities powers to exercise compulsory purchase on behalf of the promoters of voluntary schools. I do not think it was obligatory on the education authority to exercise these powers; they could do so if they so desired. We have repeated that power in this Bill, and the proviso in the first Sub-section of this Clause is the place where we do it. Voluntary promoters who desire to acquire land, and who find the price unreasonable or the owner unwilling to sell, can go to the local education authority and ask them to promote a compulsory purchase order, to place the voluntary promoters in exactly the same position that the local education


authority would itself be in. As for the special agreement schools—that is, the 1936 Act schools—it is clearly to the advantage of the local education authority to do that; they may have to find three-quarters of the cost, and it would, therefore, be even more to their interest than to that of the voluntary promoters to get the site as cheaply as possible. Therefore, I do not think that in that case there would be any difficulty in getting a compulsory purchase order.
While the cost of the brand-new school and its site will, of course, fall on the promoters, the scheme will have been approved after notice. The proposals will have to have been examined by the local education authority, and I should have thought that it would be better to rely upon the good offices of the local education authority than to insert compulsion in the Bill. These negotiations go on for some time. I do not think that there was any case under the 1936 Act of the particular promoters, with whom my hon. Friends are most closely associated, being refused a compulsory order by a local education authority, and I believe that that spirit will continue to prevail. I would suggest that this is one of the things that we should leave to the operation of good relationships between the local education authority and the promoters
There is of course, a more serious reason for objecting to this Amendment than those reasons that I have advanced. Both my hon. Friends were peculiarly silent about the financial implications and arrangements. I have no doubt that they did not desire to associate filthy lucre with the establishment of this particular type of school. But we, unfortunately, must have regard to the last suggestion in the Amendment. That really would be importing into this law the arrangement that was made in the Liverpool Act, which implemented, for the peculiar political and religious circumstances of Liverpool, the 1936 Act. What they are asking is that the local education authority should virtually agree, when land is leased to the managers, to pay a grant that really varies from 50 to 75 per cent, at the current market rates of interest.
Clearly that is not an issue that we can deal with just as a side wind on the compulsory purchase order. After all the trouble that we have had to-day, because some people thought a particular Clause

of this Bill was used unjustifiably, I venture to suggest that the financial part of this Amendment alone would make it necessary for us to resist it. We are anxious, and I think this is indicated by the terms of the Bill, that these auxiliary schools shall survive and shall get as good a chance of amenities as the other schools inside the State system. I think that my hon. Friends can rely quite safely on the co-operation of the local education authority in getting the sites that they require, and I hope they will feel that it is not necessary to press this Amendment.

Sir P. Hannon: If we had a recalcitrant local authority, and, in a particular instance, the circumstances affecting Liverpool were repeated, what action would the Minister then take to enable the acquisition of land for the sites of schools to be effected?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) was responsible at that time, and effective steps were taken that _brought Liverpool into line, and, while they were somewhat slow, I suggest to the hon. Member who represents one of the very great corporations of this country, that we do not want to assume on all these issues that the local authority will not act reasonably unless there is compulsion in the Bill. In fact, sometimes compulsion rather induces the local authority to see if there is not some other way round. The general relationships of my hon. Friends and the local education authorities are such that they will have no difficulty in this matter. I do not want to labour the point unduly, but my own local authority, which has not a single member of their faith on it, promoted, under the 1936 Act, two compulsory Orders for their schools, and I think that is an indication that local authorities recognise the position of my hon. Friends and will desire to see that their schools not merely survive but get the facilities to which they are entitled for a sound and full life.

Sir P. Hannon: I should like to say that the last thought in my mind was to suggest that any difficulty could arise with the local education authority of Birmingham. Every authority, however, is not animated by the toleration of Binning-ham, and we may have an authority that takes a point of view that may revive some of the difficulties dealt with in the Liver-


pool case. Would it not be well for the Minister to have compulsory powers to deal with cases of that kind?

Mr. Ede: We are now dealing with compulsory powers of local authorities. The Board has compulsory powers of a very different kind, which, in fact, they did apply to Liverpool.

Mr. C. Davies: I rise only to call attention to, and make a record of, this fact. We seem to have got back, at long last, to the Education Bill. I do not know what will be the record that the last Division has shown, but it seems that, looking round this Committee, there are very few of us who are greatly interested in education. On this Amendment, I think it is only right that we should have been in attendance, but I wish to call attention to that fact.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 84 and 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 86.—(Power of Minister to direct local inquiries.)

Sir P. Hannon: I beg to move, in page 61, line 3, at the end, to add:
(2) The following further provisions shall also apply to any such local inquiry—

(a) the Minister shall appoint a person or persons to hold the inquiry;
(b) the person or persons so appointed shall hold a sitting or sittings in some convenient place in the neighbourhood to which the subject of the inquiry relates and thereat shall hear, receive and examine any evidence and information offered and hear and inquire into the objections or representations made respecting the subject matter of the inquiry with power from time to time to adjourn any sitting;
(c) notice shall be published in such manner as the Minister may direct of every such sitting except an adjourned sitting seven days at least before the holding thereof;
(d) the person or persons so appointed shall make a report in writing to the Minister setting forth the result of the inquiry and the objections and representations, if any, made thereat and any opinion or recommendations submitted to him or them to the Minister;
(e) the Minister shall furnish a copy of the report to any local education authority concerned with the subject matter of the inquiry and on payment of such fee as may be fixed by the Minister to any person interested."

In moving this Amendment I should like to call the attention of the Minister to the provision made in Section 156 of the Education Act, 1921, in which the details set out regarding inquiries are, in substance, those of our Amendment, but we wish to define more clearly how the inquiry, when instituted, should take place. The object of this Amendment is to ask the Minister whether he would embody in the Bill or repeat the instructions set down in Section 156 of the Act of 1921, where the details of the arrangements made, the nomination of the Committee, the instructions given to the Committee and so forth, are set out. I would suggest that, in order that the inquiries should be conducted to the fullest satisfaction of all the interests concerned, it would be valuable, in the administration of the Bill, when it comes into operation, that some process should be observed such as was introduced into the Act of 1921.

Mr. Ede: There might have been some thing to be said for this Amendment if it had included the whole of the provisions of Section 156 of the Education Act of 1921, but, curiously enough, the last two paragraphs of Sub-section (2) of Section 156 have been left out of this Amendment. They are:
(f) The Board may, where it appears to them reasonable that such an order should be made, order the payment of the whole or any part of the costs of the inquiry either by any local education authority to whose administration the inquiry appears to the Board to be incidental, or by the applicant for the inquiry, and may require the applicant for an inquiry to give security for the costs thereof:
(g) Any order so made shall certify the amount to be paid by the local education authority or the applicant, and any amount so certified shall, without prejudice to the recovery thereof as a debt due to the Crown, be recoverable by the Board summarily as a civil debt from the authority or the applicant as the case may be.
Quite clearly, if we are going to have the first part of the Sub-section, which enables all and sundry to demand inquiries, we must have some arrangement whereby frivolous inquiries, which may put the Board or local education authority to very considerable expense, can be checked.

Mr. Stokes: We will accept that.

Mr. Ede: I suppose the typists got tired —like the Chairman got tired—when the Clause was being copied, hut, after all,


these are local government inquiries, and it is desirable that the Local Government Act, 1933, which was a very carefully thought out Act, should apply to the whole range of local government inquiries. All that my hon. Friends desire can be arranged under the Local Government Act, and I would suggest that it is desirable that we should have a standard form of conducting these inquiries which will apply over the whole range of the subjects with which local authorities are concerned.

Sir P. Hannon: Will the Minister take note of the words in the Amendment, which require that the person or persons appointed shall make a report in writing to the Minister, and the Minister shall furnish a copy of the report to any local education authority concerned with the subject matter of the inquiry, and, on payment of a fee, to any person interested? That is a very important consideration.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that any inquiry has been held since I have been at the Board of Education because people have been engaged on other subjects, but I have given evidence before inquiries of this kind and I have seen inspectors' reports on those inquiries and on my evidence, and have been informed of them. It is very valuable to see them afterwards when one can take a historic view of oneself and of the opinion others form of one's evidence. A copy of the Report is furnished to the local education authority concerned with the matter. The more we can make all this local government procedure uniform throughout the country the more convenient it is for everybody concerned. My hon. Friend can rest assured that certainly my right hon. Friend, and any successor whom I have ever regarded as likely, would not act upon the result of an inquiry without seeing the report of the inspector sent down to hold it.

Sir P. Hannon: Will that report be communicated to the person who makes application for the inquiry or on whose application the inquiry is instituted?

Mr. Ede: Usually the local education authority asks for the inquiry and the report goes to it. If any person asks for an inquiry, a copy of the Report is sent to him.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the statement which has been made by the Parliamen-

tary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 89.—(Provisions consequential on cessation of functions of former authorities.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 62, line 17, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) If upon the application of a former authority the Minister is satisfied with respect to any property which was immediately before the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act held by that authority for the purposes of functions exerciseable by them under the Education Acts, 1921 to 1939, that, although the property was so held, it was held upon trust for purposes of such a nature that the transfer thereof to a local education authority would be inexpedient the Minister may by order direct that the property shall be deemed not to have been transferred by virtue of section six of this Act to the local education authority for the county in which the area of the former authority is situated.
It will be recollected that on Clause 6 we arranged for the transfer of all property held by a Part III authority to the county council on the appointed day being reached. It has been brought to our notice that some of the Part III education authorities have property which has been left to them by the action of distinguished citizens and other people who clearly desired that the property should remain in local hands. We propose, therefore, this Amendment, so that where it can be proved by the local education authority that, in fact, there is such property, It may remain in the possession of the district council and not be passed on to the county council. Members will have in mind various technical institutes and buildings of that description in different parts of the country which, in the past, when the State took very little interest in this sort of thing, were given by benefactors in the district. At that time the power to spend money on that form of education was limited to whisky money and the product of a penny rate by the local authority. Many of these institutions would not have been founded at all but for the fact that there was a generous benefactor who desired to have this particular service rendered in his home town. In those cases, where such a history can be established, it is only right that the institution should remain with the local


authority to whom it was originally devised.

Mr. Hutchinson: I rise only to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. One has heard of the provision in cases where property has been left to the local authority. Can my hon. Friend say whether it is intended that the same provision shall apply to those cases where a sum of money has been left on trust to the local aducation authority, for the same purpose?

Captain Prescott: I think that this new Sub-section has been introduced as the result of the Amendment put down by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland). An undertaking was given then by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education that this would be introduced. I would like to express on behalf of myself, and, I am sure, of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham, appreciation of the introduction of this Sub-section.

Mr. Ede: In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) I am assured that "property" covers money, and that where there is a bequest that clearly was intended for very narrow local use, and there is still need for it, the intention of the person who left the money will be honoured.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 62, line 27, leave out "liabilities and expenses," and insert "and liabilities."—[Mr. Ede.]

Captain Prescott: I beg to move, in page 62, line 3o, at the end, to insert:
() Where a liability to be transferred by virtue of this Act from a former authority to a local education authority is a liability to repay and to pay interest upon a loan the local education authority shall (unless it is otherwise agreed) from time to time pay to the former authority such sums as are required to meet the loan charges falling due on or after the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act in respect of that loan. In this Section the expression "loan charges" includes the interest payable on a loan and the charges for the repayment thereof whether by means of a sinking fund or otherwise.
In moving this Amendment, which stands in my name and the names of several other hon. Members, I would recall that under Clause 6 of the Bill, the

liabilities of the county districts, in so far as they are connected with educational matters, will be transferred to the new education authorities which, as the Bill stands at the moment, will be the county councils. By Clause 89 certain financial adjustments are proposed to be made between the former education authorities and the new education authorities—the county councils—by virtue of the transfer of the property rights and liabilities of the former education authorities. It will be appreciated that several of the former local education authorities have raised loans for educational purposes, and the Amendment with which I am now dealing, is concerned with those loans. In some cases, the loans have been raised by way of creating a mortgage and in other cases by the issue of stock, and the repayment of the loan and interest thereon has been made a charge on the general rate funds of the former local education authorities, As far as I am aware, there is no provision in the Bill for the alteration of this charge, and, consequently, the former education authority will remain liable for the repayment of the sum and interest thereon.
It is suggested by the Amendment that it would be most convenient and obvious for the local education authority that is to be created—that is the county council —from time to time to pay to the former education authority, the loan charges which will become due on those loans. It will be appreciated that, in many instances, where loans have been received by way of mortgage or the issue of stock, the loan is not devoted entirely to education purposes, and that a certain part of the capital fund may have been raised for purposes other than education and it would be impossible to decide upon any allocation. I would like the Committee to know—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is already aware of the fact—that there is a precedent for the Amendment. It is contained in Section 117 of the Local Government Act, 1929. In that case it was the transfer of certain highways from district councils to county councils was under consideration, and a provision was inserted in that Act similar to the Amendment now proposed.

Mr. Ede: We are advised that these words are unnecessary, but the powers given to my right hon. Friend under this Clause enable him to make any such


adjustments as may be necessary. Therefore we do not regard it as necessary that these words should be inserted.

Mr. Hutchinson.: The answer which we have just had from the Parliamentary Secretary does not entirely meet the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend a moment ago. The difficulty I see about this Amendment is that these authorities have raised loans on the security of a mortgage charged upon the general rate fund of the authority, or, in some cases, they have raised loans by the issue of stock, the security of the stock being the general rate fund of the authority. The difficulty that I see, and which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up, is this, that there does not appear to be envisaged in this Bill any provision by which the terms of these mortgages, or of these loans, can be varied. I see nothing in the Bill which will enable the Minister to release the authorities from their obligation to meet this repayment of the loan or payment of the interest, and to transfer that obligation to another authority. As I understand the Bill, the Minister has very wide powers to deal with different authorities, but does not, as I follow it, have power to deal with the persons who advance money on the mortgage or who subscribe to the stock. It would help those of us who are interested in this matter if the Parliamentary Secretary could point out quite clearly the section which gives the Minister power to adjust these mortgages or interest on stock.

Mr. Loftus: I rise to support the point put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) and I would also like to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to make his answer a little more definite. He said the Board would have power to do this. Can we have a stronger assurance that this will be done, because it is unfair that the property should be transferred, and the liability for building the property should continue to be a charge on the local rates?

Captain Prescott: Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, may I say that I quite appreciate that under Sub-section (2) of Clause 89 it would be possible for the local education authority, that is to say the town council, to pay to the former education authority the interest and loan charges on these loans. I quite appreciate that that can already be done in the

terms of the Bill without the insertion of this Amendment, but the point I wish to make, and it was ably put by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), is that no provision is made for the alteration of the charge. It is under those circumstances that I and my hon. Friends consider it necessary that this Amendment should be inserted.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I find myself in the same difficulty as my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. I think the provision is an exceedingly important one, because very large issues may arise from it. I venture to suggest that if it is not rather clearer than it appears to us to be in the Bill at the present time, there may be a very weighty amount of litigation arising upon an exceedingly difficult and technical point which, being a member of the profession myself, may seem to me to be very desirable but which, on the other hand, is not what we want to set out to achieve in this particular Bill.

Mr. Graham White: If there is any doubt about this question at all, and if the hon. Gentleman cannot give us a definite assurance on the matter, it would be as well if it were referred to again on the Report stage, because while it may be arranged to transfer funds to the authority in question, there does not appear to be any guarantee that those funds will necessarily be applied to any particular mortgage. The possibility of litigation appears to be very considerable and I think the Committee ought to be assured very definitely on the point.

Mr. Ede: No one is more anxious to preserve the local authorities from being involved in litigation than I am, and anything that I can do to keep them out of the Law Courts on issues like this, where I know thousands of pounds can be spent quite easily, I shall be quite willing to do. I am advised that the words "making of such adjustments" in Sub-section (2), line 26, cover the cases that my hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. and learned Friend have in mind, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) that, after the weight of legal authority which has been brought to bear on me, I certainly would not like to make any dogmatic pronouncement on the subject at the moment. We will examine these words to see if they


cover all the cases that have been mentioned to-day, and any cognate cases that ought to be brought within their scope. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford and my other hon. Friends who are associated with this Amendment will be willing, when I have the answer, to give me the benefit of their opinions upon it before we reach the next stage of the Bill.

Captain Prescott: I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is in complete sympathy with the views which I have expressed and, in view of the assurances which he has so kindly given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 62, line 36, at the end, to insert:
and in such directions the Minister shall have regard to Section one hundred and fifty-one of the Local Government Act, 1933.
This Amendment seeks to invoke Section 151 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which Section provides a convenient machinery for the financial adjustments which may be necessary under Clause 89 of this Bill, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Messer: I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept the Amendment, though it appears quite innocuous and simple. What it in fact asks is that the Act relating to compensation, the Local Government Act, shall be used in this instance. What does it mean? The Amendment is a particularly mean Amendment. If it is carried, it means that the richer boroughs in Middlesex will gain instead of playing the part that they should play in equalisation of rates. If there is one thing that commends this Bill, and makes it necessary that the county council shall be the local education authority, even if we delegate all administrative functions, it is the fact that there is to be a county equalisation of rate, If this Amendment is carried, however, it means that the borough, part of which I represent, will be adversely affected. The table is too complicated to go into but, in short, what it means is that Tottenham would have to raise £900,000. It would do that by means of a loan. That loan would be spread over a

period of years and instead of Tottenham, which is a poor borough, being assisted, it would have to stand the responsibility, in addition to other things, for paying the interest on that loan. I realise, of course, that Middlesex stands in a special position; it is a county which is completely urbanised, where every county district is contiguous to the other. There are no stretches of rural country dividing one from the other. In fact, it is so completely urbanised that its position is more relative to a large town than to a county in the ordinary sense. If the Amendment were carried the Middlesex County Council would have to take from some parts and pay to others, with the consequences to which I have just referred. I do not want to delay the Committee, but if the Amendment were pressed I should have to produce figures which would take some time to explain. Therefore, I hope the Committee will see the wisdom of not interfering with the fundamental principle of the Bill—equalisation of the county rate —which would be destroyed if the Amendment were carried.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has put the case against the Amendment very clearly and very forcibly. If we are to get the benefits of the larger area of the county, so that the burden is evenly spread over the county, it would be impossible to get this by accepting this Amendment. It not only incorporates Section 151 of the Local Government Act, but by doing so, it brings in the consequential provisions of Section 152, and in Section 152 (1, b) we should be involved in the assessment of the burden claims, as they are called, which would result in the kind of operation which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham. The Amendment would clearly cut across the whole of the principle of the Bill and the Government are, therefore, unable to accept it.

Mr. Keeling: Is there any provision for arbitration in the event of dispute about these financial adjustments?

Mr. Ede: In Clause 89 (2) we deal with the way agreement is reached and in Clause 89 (3) with the power of the Minister to deal with these matters when there is no agreement.

Mr. Keeling: Arbitration is not contemplated?

Mr. Ede: The Minister is the arbitrator.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this Clause would cover a certain case I have in mind where the use of a school, built by a private individual and let to a local education authority for many years, is denied to that individual's heirs?

Captain Prescott: I take it that the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends—in page 62, line 36, as set out on the Order Paper—has not been selected, Major Milner.

The Chairman: No, I thought it was covered by the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), which has just been negatived. But the hon. and gallant Member can discuss the matter on the Motion now before the Committee if he wishes to do so.

Captain Prescott: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to two important matters. The first deals with financial adjustments consequential upon the alteration of boundaries in county boroughs or urban districts. In recent years there have been readjustments of boundaries of non-county boroughs and urban districts, when these boundaries have been enlarged and certain territories have been taken from a county council and incorporated in a non-county borough or urban district. In such cases, the functions for elementary education in the added area have come under the charge of the non-county borough or urban district. The result has been, in many cases, that the county council has received payments of all kinds from the non- county borough or urban district. In the first case, it has received payment for the actual building of the schools which have been transferred, and, in the second case, in view of the fact that the revenue the county council had received from the area which had been ceded exceeded the sums spent on elementary education, it has often occurred that the county council

has received payment or payments from the non-county borough or urban districts for the increase in burden. In some cases where the readjustment of boundaries has taken place the financial adjustments have not been completed. Under the provisions of this Bill, in the case of non-county boroughs and urban districts, the county council will become the local education authority and schools will be re-transferred to the county council. I would suggest, for the consideration of the Minister, that under these circumstances it would not be right that the county council should retain all the money which had been paid to them by the non-county borough or urban district in respect of those schools. It is true that for a certain period the non-county borough or urban district will have had the use of these schools and that it would, therefore, be equitable that some adjustment should be made and smite return made of the money they have made over to the county council.
The second point is the continuance, or otherwise, of payments for the increase of burdens. For instance, in the case of Crosby £8,000 a year is paid, which is the actuality of the increasing burden in their case. I am sure it would never be suggested that it would be right that such payment should continue. There are a number of towns affected in this manner. To mention a few there are Cambridge—which will strike a friendly note in the mind of the President—Kidderminster, Lancaster, Blyth, Bromley, Stretford, King's Lynn and Tunbridge Wells. There is a further point. It will be appreciated that in some cases non-county boroughs and urban districts have to raise a special rate of 1d. or 1·33d. for the provision of technical and higher education, and they have borne this cost quite apart from the county rate and the contribution they have paid to the county in respect of higher education. As a result of this Bill all the educational facilities which they have provided, and which they have themselves paid for, will be transferred to the county council. It is suggested that the non-county boroughs and urban districts which have borne this additional cost should receive some recompense from the county council or somebody for the moneys which they have expended in this manner. I would therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider the points I have mentioned and, if he can, introduce some Amend-


ment to cover the matters that I have endeavoured to explain.

Captain Bullock: I should like to draw attention particularly to the Borough of Crosby. This was not an extension of a non-county borough. It was the case of a new borough. It was incorporated and given its Charter in 1937. The borough council then became the education authority as far as elementary education was concerned, and payment was made to the Lancashire County Council of a sum not exceeding £8,000 a year. I believe, also, that certain payments were made in respect of buildings. The borough council made elaborate and well thought out plans for education which were cut short by the war. They have continued to pay the £8,000, and as a result of this Bill they will be handing back their authority to the Lancashire County Council. I suggest that they should certainly not go on paying this £;8,000, which they might be forced to do, and also that a sum of money should be returned to them for the expense that they have had during the years of the war as the result of the plans which they are unable to carry out. When the Bill becomes law the borough will be considerably more highly rated as regards education than heretofore.

Mr. Ede: These, again, are adjustments which will be carried out under the Clause. With regard to the case which has just been presented to us, surely for a time the authority have been enjoying local self-government in this matter and for 'that period they must shoulder all the responsibility of autonomy. When the period of autonomy comes to an end, as I understand it, the payment of £8,000 will cease, but during the period they have enjoyed autonomy that was the price that this House attached to it, and I do not think they have the right to say, after having enjoyed it for all that time, "Now that we are going to lose it, will you please repay us the money Parliament has decided ought to be paid during the time we enjoyed it." I do not think there is any case for paying back the money.

Captain Prescott: The payments will automatically cease.

Mr. Ede: Yes. When we come to the question of the penny rate, as it is colloquially known, raised under Section

70 of the Act of 1921, that was a rate levied by boroughs and urban districts before the Education Act, 1902. It was associated with the old technical instruction Act, and a good many technical institutes and other buildings were erected under it, sometimes with assistance from the county council, and sometimes out of the borough or urban district rate. I am a trustee of such a technical institute at Epsom, which was erected on a 50–50 basis by the Surrey County Council and the Epsom Urban District Council on the condition that Epsom raised their share out of the penny rate.

Sir A. Southby: And to the best of my knowledge you carried it out exceedingly well.

Mr. Ede: We have not had a meeting for ten years. Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded to it, I have twice been the sole surviving trustee. There, again, while the authorities had the power to raise the money they enjoyed a great measure of control in respect of it. Now that the liability for maintaining the institute passes to the county council there seems to me to be no reason why fresh money should be raised. Neither is there any case for any repayment of the money that has been paid hitherto either, by agreement, to the county council or sometimes entirely by the urban district council or borough.

Captain Prescott: The county council, being the education authority, is taking over these colleges and schools. It is true that they will be liable for their maintenance, but is it not considered right that some payment should be made to the former local education authorities who have shouldered the burden?

Mr. Ede: If there is a remaining liability in respect of the building—supposing it has been built out of a loan and the annual charges have been charged against the rates—clearly that liability passes to the local education authority. Up to the time the building passes over, the urban district or borough council, as the case may be, will have certain rights in it and will be associated with the management until the date that it passes over to the county council. If there should be any case where it can be urged that an undue proportion was raised out of revenue—it could not amount to much on the basis of a penny rate—clearly that would be


one of the adjustments which would have to be considered by my right hon. Friend when the transfer takes place, if agreement was not in fact reached between the county council and the district council. We have, in this Clause, endeavoured to have an instrument so flexible that we shall be able to deal with some of these very intricate cases, and, in view of the assurance that I gave my hon. and learned Friend just now, I hope it may be felt that the Clause is sufficient to enable the reasonable thing to be done.

Mr. Hutchinson: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's reply it is his view—and I agree with it—that there is already power in the Bill to make these adjustments which the Amendment seeks to introduce. I agree that there is power to make adjustments to this end, and I understand that it is the intention of the Minister to see that these matters are adjusted in a fair and equitable way. Still, I would suggest that it is desirable that an Amendment should be introduced laying down in broad outline the terms on which these adjustments ought to be made. The Bill provides that in the first instance the authorities concerned shall seek to make an agreement with regard to these matters. I suggest that it would be a good thing to put into the Bill something which to some extent would control these agreements, so that when the authorities sit down together to make their agreement, they know at least some of the things which have to be the subjects of agreement between them. Unless that is done, I feel that it will have the result of producing disputes between the authorities, which will then have to be taken to the Minister for his decision. I suggest that these disputes could, to a large extent, be obviated if my hon. Friend would look at the Clause again before the Report stage and consider whether it might not be desirable to put into the Bill some of the matters to which he has referred.

Mr. Ede: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for supporting me in the first part of his speech. I think that this is the first time that one of His Majesty's Counsel, learned in the law, has expressed his support of a poor layman who has to grapple with them in all parts of the Committee.

Mr. Hutchinson: This Clause is so wide that anyone could safely say that the Minister has power to do almost anything.

Mr. Ede: I shall, therefore, have to examine the Clause very carefully to see that, in the phrase that my right hon. Friend used the other day, I do not clip his wings in trying to do something for the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott). We cannot turn this arrangement into a sale-and-purchase arrangement. This is a transfer of liabilities, rights and duties, and an adjustment on those lines is all that we contemplate under the Clause. My hon. and learned Friend has certainly suggested a wide field which we can explore between now and the Report stage to see if it is necessary or desirable to give more definition to what the subjects of agreement will be. We will examine that, but in view of his commendation of the width of the Clause, we shall be unlikely to want to narrow it.

Captain Prescott: The Parliamentary Secretary gave a reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) about the special case of Crosby, but he did not refer in general to non-county boroughs and urban districts which had had an alteration of boundaries. I fully appreciate that we cannot work it out on the basis of sale and purchase, but there have been in those cases definite cash payments for school buildings or by way of increased burdens, and I suggest that, either by a specific Clause or by agreement under Clause 19, it will be necessary to take those payments into account and give them great consideration when the final adjustment is made.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 90.—(Modification of 2 and 3 Geo. 6. C. 94.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 63, line 19, at the end, to add:
Any such person as aforesaid shall for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer and compensation of officers be deemed to have been employed by the council of such county district immediately before the date of the commencement of Part II of this Act on the duties which he was undertaking immediately before he so ceased to serve, except that where any such officer was not employed substantially lull-time in connection with the functions of such county district council as local education authority such council shall continue to be the appropriate authority and shall be under any statutory obligation for the reinstatement of such person and provided that an agreement for transfer of any such person to the service of the county council may he made within six


months from his demobilisation. And provided further that for the purposes of section ninety-one of this Act an officer of a county council who ceased to serve in order to undertake war service shall be deemed immediately before the commencement of Part II of this Act to have been in the service of such county council and discharging the duties which he undertook immediately before he so ceased to serve.
The object of this Amendment is to clear up a situation that might otherwise be ambiguous. A statement from the Parliamentary Secretary might be sufficient to prevent the possibility of difficulties arising when the Bill becomes an Act. Under the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, local authorities are empowered to make up the remuneration of members of their staffs on war service, and they have a legal obligation in regard to the preservation of superannuation rights. The Clause deals with the application of that Act, but it is not clear what is to happen to officers who might be doing partly educational work and partly other work. There must be a large number if members of staffs of Part III authorities working in municipal offices who are not spending full time on educational matters but are doing some educational work and some work relating to the general municipal life.
The final part of the Amendment is intended to make it clear that an officer of the county council on war service
shall be deemed immediately before the commencement of Part II of this Act to have been in the service of such county council and discharging the duties which he undertook immediately before he so ceased to serve.
I have no desire to argue the matter at this juncture, but I would be glad if we could have clarity on this situation, so that officers and serving members of staffs may have their rights protected. The Amendment is moved for no other purpose than to secure that that shall be done.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I am glad to support this Amendment. I do so with every reservation. I do not desire to divide the Committee, to imperil the Second Front or the position of the Minister or of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am concerned only with education, and with doing justice to a small body of local government servants whose rights, as I read the Clause, are not sufficiently protected by the Clause as it stands. The Committee will now understand that we are dealing with a matter

of small compass with nothing world-shattering in it—but there is a lacuna. The position of persons engaged under local authorities to do work, which is partly their own education work and partly in another direction, is not sufficiently protected.
If the Committee were prepared to endure it, I could expatiate at considerable length upon the exact meaning and interpretation of the words in the Clause, and the way in which their defect is going to be filled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer). I do not propose to do so. AU I say is that it is not clear in the Clause now that the position of a person employed by a local education authority, partly for educational purposes and partly for other purposes, is sufficiently protected. There are any number of examples of this throughout the country. There are, indeed, some in my own constituency. A Part II authority in my constituency employed the same architects as were employed by the county council. The architect is not a person who is likely to fall within the purview of the provisions relating to those who have joined His Majesty's Forces, but he might well be affected and his position should surely be clear under the provisions of the Clause. The Amendment, as moved by my hon. Friend, would certainly protect him were that to occur. I think the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister should make it clear, either in terms within the Clause or by declaration here in Committee, that the position of such a person is completely protected, that it makes no difference whether he is partly or fully employed.

Mr. Ede: My hon. and learned Friend has said that there was nothing world shattering in this, but after all if a person was left out, his particular world might very well be shattered. We are dealing here with the rights of individuals whose incomes and compensation and things like that, when compared with the colossal amounts we talk of nowadays, do not sound very big but they represent the whole of their lives to them. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and my hon. and learned Friend have given weight to the fact that since this Clause was placed in the Bill the Reinstatement Act has been passed. The Clause was


drafted with a knowledge that that Act was on its way to the Statute Book. We do not desire that any person, whether he be a person engaged whole-time on education or only part-time engaged on education, should be deprived of any rights he would have had but for the passing of this Bill. We are advised that the Clause is ample to cover all the cases, but if my hon. and learned Friend will give me the particular case he has in mind, I will have it examined, because generally it is by the examination of particular cases that one can discover a flaw in such a Clause as this. We will see if that is the case, because the very last thing we would desire would be that anyone, especially of the people who are uncertain as to which employer they will be coming back to, should be injured in any way by this Clause. But we did take care to draft it as widely as we possibly could to cover as many people as possible, having in mind all the time that the Reinstatement Act was on its way to the Statute Book.

Mr. Messer: I must admit that I am not completely satisfied because the Reinstatement Act does give to those who are entitled to go back to a job a job that is waiting for them. Now when we are transferring the functions of one authority to another authority and we have got somebody doing part-time education work, the very thing I wanted to avoid was any dubiety as to the job he was going back to when he returns to the service. Is he going back to an authority that wants him as an architect or an authority that wants him for educational purposes?

Mr. Ede: On an earlier Clause we had some discussion on the question as to which authority was to take a man in the position my hon. Friend has indicated, whether a man is on service or not. Quite clearly that can be settled between the two authorities where the man is engaged part-time on educational work and part-time on other work. I do not think his absence on war service will make the settlement of his ultimate destination in the public service any mare difficult.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 91.—(Compensation of persons prejudicially affected by this Act.)

Mr. Burden: I beg to move, in page 63, line 20, to leave out from the beginning to "suffers," in line 23, and to insert:
Any person who at the date of the coming into operation of this Part of this Act or any such order, scheme, or agreement as is hereinafter mentioned (as the case may be) is an officer of a local authority or who, at that date, is engaged on war service but was, immediately before undertaking war service, an officer of a local authority and who, in consequence of anything in this Act or any order, scheme, or agreement made in pursuance of the provisions of this Act.
The side title of this Clause is
Compensation of persons prejudicially affected by this Act,
but I would respectfully submit that the Clause provides compensation for only a limited number of persons. I take it that it is quite unnecessary to argue the case for compensation—that is a well established principle—but I suggest that the Clause ought to provide for any officer of any authority who may be directly affected, and who may suffer pecuniary loss or have his appointment terminated, as a result of the passing of the Bill. It is quite unfair to single out one section of officers and provide compensation for them, and to exclude others who may equally suffer as a result of the passing of the Act. The Amendment and consequential Amendments on the Order Paper will provide compensation for any officer who may be adversely affected by any order, scheme, or agreement made under the Act. Past experience has shown that the officers of local authorities to whom functions have been transferred have sometimes been adversely affected: for example, their places have been taken by officers who are transferred with the functions. The Local Government Act, 1933, provides for the compensation of any existing officer; and it follows, therefore, that the compensation provisions apply to all officers, and not only to transferred officers.
May I also put a point in regard to those on war service? The Clause does not provide for compensation for local government officers now serving with the Forces, in the event of their being adversely affected. I submit that nothing is more calculated to cause despondency and alarm among local government


officers serving with the Forces than if they realise that, if their jobs disappear as a result of this Bill, there will be no compensation for them. It would be quite wrong to plead the Reinstatement Act, which gives only a limited measure of protection, namely, employment for 26 weeks. I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary do not desire to do any injustice to any member of the local government service who may be affected by this Bill. As was mentioned on a previous Amendment, this is their world, and this Bill, when passed, may shatter their world. I suggest that it is not fair or right to provide compensation for one section and refuse it to another section, particularly those who are on war service at the present time. Not only that, but if the Clause is carried as it stands, it will break down a principle of compensation for any officer affected which has been established by legislation for over half a century, and I hope the Minister is not going to set a bad precedent of that kind. In those circumstances, I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I fail to see why the Parliamentary Secretary should be impressed by this Amendment at all. It is the desire of the mover, the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden), supported by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson), to protect persons who go off to the war, leaving their appointments to undertake war service, but the terms of the Clause are very clear. They apply to every person who was an officer of the council affected by the provisions of the Clause. As I see it, if a person goes into His Majesty's Forces and volunteers for the duration of the war, he will remain, for the purpose of this Clause, an officer affected by the provisions of the Clause. He is not affected in the least by the fact that he is on war service, but still retains all the advantages given to him by the provisions of this Clause. I therefore confess, with all respect to my hon. Friend and to my hon. and learned Friend, that their object is completely defeated by this Amendment. They are protected. Why should they try to get further protection when the Clause secures everything they could possibly need? Therefore, I hope, not that the Amendment will be rejected, but

that my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend will consult together and ask leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Hutchinson: I only want to take up one point, because the matter has been so fully put by the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden). As the Bill stands, the right to compensation will be restricted to those officers who are officers of authorities which will cease to be Part III education authorities under the Bill. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the Amendment seeks to extend the scope of the right to compensation to those officers who are officers of authorities to whom the Part III education functions are to be transferred. If that is done, it would be necessary, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, to provide that the right to compensation should arise if there is a loss of office or a diminution of emoluments arising by reason of any Order made under this Bill. Under the Schedule of the Bill there are very wide and extensive powers to meet what are called claims of provisional administration. It may very well be that the effect of Orders bringing these schemes into operation may result in the officers of the authorities to whom the educational functions have been transferred suffering a diminution in their emoluments. Therefore, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is going to reply, that when he comes to consider the case of the officers of the authorities to whom the functions are to be transferred, he should also consider whether it should not be necessary for that compensation to extend to cases where there is diminution of emoluments arising out of the operation of an Order made under the Act.

Mr. Ede: I am very much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) for satisfactorily answering my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden). It would be very wrong of me to attempt to say anything more after the very clear and explicit exposition which he gave of what we understand to be the Government case. We believe that all the officers who are likely to come within these arrangements are covered by the Bill. In looking at the rather narrow point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) with regard to the possible diminution of emolument of an existing officer of the county council, I


do not think that what he fears is likely to happen, but the mere fact that one person only may suffer an injustice may make the injustice even more keen to the sufferer. Therefore, I will endeavour to see that, if there is any need to cover such a case, it shall be done.

Mr. Hutchinson: A large number of officers are being brought in from other authorities and will my hon. Friend look at that?

Mr. Ede: It must not be forgotten that we arc going to have a large number of divisional executives that did not exist before and experience will be a considerable recommendation for appointment to officerships of these bodies. I should not think that the total result of this Bill will be to reduce the number of persons employed on the administration of education.

Mr. Burden: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is his view that the Clause as drafted not only provides compensation for the officers of county districts, but for the employees of the local education authority, the Part III authority? Is their case also covered by the Clause?

Mr. Ede: I have no doubt that the officer of the Part III education authority is covered. I understood that the anxiety of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford was lest a representative of the county council who might be injured by the operation of the Bill might not be covered. That was the point I promised would be examined very carefully, and I gave my reasons for thinking that the number of cases in any event is not likely to be very large.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks (Chichester): As I understood that the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) was not only worried about officers but about other persons of a similar capacity but of a different title who might also be affected, are there any other people who might be similarly affected who do not come under the definition of "officers," which is the definition in the Bill?

Mr. McEntee: On that point, could the Minister give some idea of what would be covered by the term "officer"?

Mr. Ede: The officer of an authority, as stated by the Local Government Act, 1933, is a person employed by an authority, and it has been laid down in that Act that the old differentiation between officer and servant for the purposes of this kind has vanished. Therefore any person, whether he be a salaried officer or a chief education officer of a Part III authority, a school caretaker, or an assistant school caretaker in receipt of an emolument from a local education authority, is an officer for the purpose of this Act. I do not know how they arrange about saluting, but I have no doubt they get over it satisfactorily.

Mr. Burden: I still feel that both my hon. and learned Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary are wrong, that all officers and servants are not covered, but, on the understanding that he looks at the point as well as the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, I shall be happy, with permission, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, in page 63, line 20, after "county," to insert "or county."
In discussing the last Amendment it was stated that this Clause deals with compensation of persons affected by the Bill when it becomes an Act. At the end of line 22 it says "officer of that Council," but line 20 mentions "county district." What I want to know is whether this will not apply equally to those who are officers of a county council, that is to say the county in this case, because it would appear from reading the Clause as it now stands that it would deal with the officer of the county district but not of the county council, if—

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: On a point of Order. There are two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member. May we know to which of these Amendments he is now speaking?

The Chairman: The hon. Member has moved his first Amendment, unless the Chair states otherwise.

Sir J. Lamb: If I may continue, what I want is that it might be made quite clear that the officer of a county, if by any chance that officer was affected owing to a Joint Board having been promoted, would be in a position of being able to


obtain compensation. It might possibly be said that this point is covered by the Schedule, but this Amendment would make it quite clear—and I do not think there would be much repetition if these words were inserted—that the officer of a county council is covered by this.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Again I fail to see why these Amendments are moved. After all, one has only got to see them. Here is an Amendment moved by a representative of the County Councils Association before this Committee—

Sir J. Lamb: On a point of Order, is that any disqualification?

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: No, but it is a perfectly legitimate matter to raise when we consider the substance of the Amendment itself.

Sir J. Lamb: Why?

Mr. Hughes: Look at it. Anybody who has followed this Bill at all will realise that the Bill sets up various local education authorities, and the Amendment, if you please, is one that would mean that if in consequence of the council of any county and county district ceasing to exercise functions under any enactment—and so forth. The answer is that the local education authorities are the counties and the county boroughs and are covered by the Bill already. This Amendment which we are asked to consider is, may I say with all respect to the hon. Member who has moved it, and to the Association behind him, completely meaningless. It is a complete waste of time and I hope the wisdom of the Parliamentary Secretary will explode it in two seconds.

Mr. Burden: I am surprised that this Amendment should have aroused such a denunciation. The hon. Member who moved it can possibly see the reasons for his Amendment.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: He will never see them.

Mr. Burden: I must suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) that he really has not a monopoly of Amendments, and other hon. Members must occasionally and humbly ask the right to move an Amendment without having explained it to the hon. and learned Member so that he shall know all the reasons behind it.

Mr. Ede: rose—

Earl Winterton: Can we hear the Minister? It is he to whom we want to listen, not the P.P.S.

Mr. Ede: My P.P.S. has been most exemplary. Such advice as he tenders to me is whispered so quietly and so effectively that I am quite sure it has never reached the other side of the House until I have conveyed it. Without sharing the language and views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), may I point out that the only case in which a county council can be relieved of its functions under this Bill is if a joint education board is formed? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) pointed out, paragraph (a) of Part I of the First Schedule brings in Section 293 of the Local Government Act of 1933, and that incorporates the compensation provisions of Section 150 of the Local Government Act. I therefore think that officers who might be concerned are amply covered. May I say this in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone? I, too, am a member of the Executive of the County Councils Association and—

Sir J. Lamb: My hon. Friend is running a terrible risk in saying that.

Mr. Ede: I know that great anxieties are felt by officers in the various departments that may be affected by this Bill. Many of them are not able to see easily their way through a Bill such as this and an Amendment frequently elicits information which gives them considerable reassurance. I was asked earlier to give a declaration on a certain point. Of course, I realise that any declaration I make here will not bind the courts of law. In fact, remarks might be made there that you, Mr. Williams, would not tolerate if they were made in this Committee. But while a declaration is nothing other than a Minister's opinion it is, when reinforced by the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen, of very considerable value to the people who suffer these anxieties.

Sir J. Lamb: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and in view of the courtesy shown from the other side, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 63, line 29, after, "situated," to insert:
if by virtue or in pursuance of this Act or of any determination made by the Minister thereunder he is transferred to or within one year after the commencement of Part II of this Act enters the service of such authority, but in any other case from the council of such county district.
This Amendment also is moved for the purpose of eliciting information. As the Clause stands all compensation is payable in the case of an officer of a Part III authority by the county council, which supersedes it as the local education authority. The Bill as introduced provided for the transfer to county councils of all officers employed by such Part III authorities in connection with their education functions. Clause 6 as amended limits the transfer to officers employed substantially full time. That means that a large proportion of the officers of Part III authorities will not be transferred to the county council. The Amendment says that the officers who are transferred to the county council shall be the county council's responsibility for compensation, but those not so transferred shall be the responsibility of the Part III authorities.

Mr. Ede: We cannot accept this Amendment, because we regard it as being contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill in dealing with this problem of the future education area. These part-time officers are to be compensated for the loss of education functions. The education function is paid for out of the education rate. The only body capable of raising an education rate in the area in the future will be the county council, and therefore it would appear that the liability for compensation should fall upon the people who are able to raise the appropriate funds. I think it goes a little further even than that. After all, part of this compensation will fall to be paid out of grants provided by the Board. Those grants are paid to the local education authorities and, of course, it is only fair that, if this is part of the expense of education, the Board should bear its proper share. Therefore if we left the compensation with the county district council it would have to be raised 100 per cent. by the ratepayers and the Board of Education, not making grants to the ex-Part III authorities, would escape its proper share of this burden. I think these arguments will convince my hon. Friend, who has very considerable experi

ence as a county councillor, that it is right that this compensation should fall upon the county rate, where it can be assisted from the Board of Education funds and where the education authority will be discharging what is an educational liability.

Mr. Messer: In view of that explanation, which I think it will be agreed meets the situation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Obviously my hon. Friend's case is that these officers have been employed on education, they are to be compensated because they have lost office, and will be compensated from the fund which found their salaries.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cove: I beg to move, in page 63, line 43, at the end, to insert:
or was a teacher employed in any school maintained but not provided by such council as local education authority.

Mr. Ede: This Amendment is unnecessary because the interests of teachers in non-provided schools in regard to compensation are safeguarded by Sub-section (2) of this Clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cove: I beg to move, in page 63, line 44, at the beginning, to insert:
If, in consequence of any alteration in the organisation of any school in pursuance of a local education order made under this Act, or.

Mr. Ede: We regard this Amendment as being drawn far too widely. Reorganisation has been going on for a considerable number of years, and my hon. Friend knows the statements which have been made by the organisation to which both he and I belong, that no teacher has ever suffered any loss of office or emoluments as a result of re-organisation. Provisions have been made whereby, under the Burnham scale, such losses could be met, and we do not think it is necessary to alter the Bill in the way suggested.

Earl Winterton: May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the Parliamentary Secretary on the way they have dealt with these Amendments by moving them shortly and replying to them shortly, in pleasing contrast to the garrulity with which some hon. Members move Amendments?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cove: I beg to move, in page 64, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(3) A teacher, other than a reserved teacher, employed in a special agreement school which becomes an aided school, shall not without the consent of the local education authority, be dismissed from his office on grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction in the school unless the foundation managers or foundation governors allow him compensation for the loss of his office upon such terms and with such security as may be agreed or as may, in default of agreement, be approved by the Minister, but so that the Minister shall not approve terms which in his opinion are less favourable to the teacher than they would have been if determined under Sub-section one of this Section.

Mr. Ede: May I on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and myself thank the Noble Lord for the kind words he has used? We are fully appreciative of them, seeing that they come from one who has had such a long experience of listening to garrulous Members. This Amendment would introduce the novel principle in educational law that compensation should be paid by managers or governors. We regard the case which he desires to cover as being almost impossible of occurring, when one thinks of the sums of money that would have to be raised by the managers or governors of the schools concerned in order to put themselves in a position to be able to dismiss a teacher, who, by that time, would probably have acquired considerable local popularity and status. The whole Bill has been framed on the idea that such a case would never come to pass.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 64, line 32, at the end, to add:
(4) if any officer of a county council who was immediately before the commencement of Part II of this Act employed for the purpose of any of its functions as local education authority, by virtue of this Act or of any scheme of divisional administration approved thereunder or of any other thing done in pursuance or in consequence of this Act or of any such scheme suffers direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his appointment or the diminution of his emoluments he shall be entitled to receive compensation from such Council in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Section.
This Amendment again is moved for the purpose of obtaining clarity. When the Bill comes into operation there will be great changes. County councils which have been doing Part II and Part III work will find that there will have to be a great deal of reorganisation with regard

to their officers. A county council may have its divisional officers covering those areas where they have elementary education, and directors of education in the present Part III autonomous areas acting as agents for higher education. There is the possibility that there may be some redundancy, and if not redundancy the allocation of offices at a lower remuneration. Some safeguard is required for those who may be in that position and who, as a result of the operation of this Bill, find themselves in a worse financial position than they previously occupied.

Mr. Ede: The first class of cases covered by the Amendment has already been dealt with in the reply which I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), with regard to a certain group of officers. The other officers, to whom my hon. Friend now refers, are those who come under a scheme of divisional administration, and find themselves in a less well paid job than the job which they now occupy. The divisional administration will be set up under schemes made under the First Schedule, and there will be the usual provisions for paying compensation to people who, as a result of a scheme, suffer damage. I think that in that way, under the Bill as it stands, we deal with both classes which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Messer: Having ventilated that point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burden: I shall he brief, and I hope that I shall not incur the censure of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes). May I call attention to the fact that the Clause as it stand provides that the compensation period shall be from the passing of the Act? The Local Government Act, 1933, provides that compensation shall run from the date of an agreement, or scheme, or order, and that is frequently a much later period than the passing of the Act. The Parliamentary Secretary might help us by considering that point, and see whether we can deal with it on the Report stage.

Mr. Ede: If it is necessary to deal with that point on the Report stage, I undertake to do it, but I want to say that


on this Clause and the preceding one we are exceedingly anxious that no person shall suffer in any way that ought to be avoided by the ordinary processes of law in this matter, as a result of this Measure. We are only too well aware how bad a send-off that can be to a great administrative scheme in any area.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 92.—(Powers of Minister in default of local education authorities or managers or governors.)

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 64, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(2) Where the performance of any duty imposed by or for the purposes of this Act on a local education authority or on the managers or governors of any county school or auxiliary school is thereby made contingent upon the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, the Minister may nevertheless require the authority managers or governors to perform that duty if in his opinion the circumstances are such as to require the performance thereof.
This is the last Clause which the Government will ask the Committee to consider to-day. I am sure that we are very much obliged to the Committee for adding 10 Clauses to the Bill to-day.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: If this is the last Clause which the Minister proposes to ask the Committee to deal with, may I ask how it is proposed to bring the proceedings to an end? We have only been dealing with education for two hours.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot discuss that matter.

Mr. C. Davies: I wish to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not called the hon. and learned Member. I thought he was rising to a point of Order.

Mr. Davies: Surely I am entitled to move at this hour that we report Progress.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot have that Motion moved right in the middle of a Minister's speech.

Mr. Davies: Considering the progress that we have made I think we are entitled to ask for that Motion.

Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. Can we first of all hear the Minister's statement?

Mr. Davies: I am putting a question to the Chair that at this hour when we have

been considering this Bill and we have reached a certain position we are entitled to report Progress. We have made quite a considerable amount of progress to-day.

The Deputy-Chairman: The position is quite simple. I am not accepting a Motion to report Progress in the middle of the Minister's speech.

Mr. Butler: I confess I am rather surprised. I have been trying to help the Committee. I give hon. Members my word that I should like to stay another four or five hours, but I am informed that large sections of the Committee, especially the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies), do not want to take now the grant Clauses. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to take them now and stay for the rest of the clay, but I have to consider the interests of the Committee, and a lot of other people who look after us outside. I venture to suggest that the Committee would not wish to get launched into the grant Clauses now. The grant Clauses are very important, and glad as I would be to take them now I understand others are not willing to do so. Therefore, I suggest we should confine ourselves to finishing this Clause.
This Amendment I have moved is to implement undertakings given in earlier parts of our discussions. I have inserted the words "or for the purposes of this Act" instead of "by any enactment," which words appeared on the Order Paper, because the latter were regarded as too broad for the purposes of this Measure. That is why I have made this slight alteration in the words originally on the Order Paper. Under those conditions, I think it would be wise to have this power, so that the Minister may, in fact, overrule an authority or body of managers if his opinion is contrary to theirs.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an instance of the kind of case in which these powers would be needed, because the Clause is very wide in its wording? Although I am sure it is intended to meet a real difficulty that might arise, it is so sweeping in its terms, that it would be helpful to have some indication of the kind of thing with which it is intended to deal.

Mr. Butler: The Committee will remember that earlier we had discussions about the possible dismissal of teachers by the


body of managers on grounds that might cause dissatisfaction, that is, a disputed case that depended on the opinion of the managers. It is necessary to have someone else's opinion in case of injustice. This might seem a large power, but it has to be in the Bill, in order to have an overriding opinion in doubtful cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Davies: We have now reached a point about which I am not quite sure as this is such a long Bill. Part I covers five Clauses; then Part II covers primary and secondary education. Then there is the 'management of primary schools—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot, on Clause 92, go into the other Clauses again. We really must keep to the Clause itself.

Mr. Davies: That is exactly what I am coming to. We have now come to the end of the Clauses relating to administrative provisions, and we are about to start upon an entirely new matter. May I, therefore, point out that, while the House has been so full during the whole of the day, we have in this Committee at this moment somewhere about 40 Members? I think it is only right that it should be put on record that at this moment, when we are really considering the administrative provisions, which go from Clause 81 to Clause 92, there are so few Members present.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to find myself in conflict with my hon. and learned Friend, but it is hardly fair to the Committee for him to make that observation. It is perhaps out of Order to discuss the matter at all, but I want to point out that, throughout the discussion, there has been a good attendance.

Sir G. Schuster: In the exercise of his powers under the Clause, would the Minister consider—

Mr. C. Davies: Have I not already called attention, Mr. Williams, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the hon. and learned Member said that there were somewhere about 40 Members present.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members being presentin—

Sir G. Schuster: Would the Minister, in exercising his powers under this Clause, consider it a default if managers or governors failed to meet every three months? I want to get my right hon. Friend's answer to that question put on record.

Mr. Butler: I think it is valuable that the hon. Member should have brought this point to my notice. The Minister would, naturally, have to take every case on its merits, but I shall take into consideration the point the hon. Member has brought forward.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I rise, not with any idea of obstructing the Bill or delaying the Committee, but because I desire to register my eagerness to get on with the Bill. I am one who has attended the Committee stage of this Bill practically throughout.

Mr. Cove: The hon. and learned Member has a lot to say, too.

Mr. Hughes: I am anxious that we should make progress with the Bill. We are now in this position, that the Standing Order has been suspended, and we could go on to such time as the Minister or the Government desired. We are at a critical stage in this Measure. I do not know how far one might venture to suggest what the future programme of the Government will be, but one has heard of the possibility that we have, in the next series of Sittings, two days to deal with the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill. From the rate of progress we have been making, two further Sitting Days, especially if the Government are going to close down on the day's work at this hour, are hardly likely to see us through the remainder of the Bill. Today, we have had, in fact, something like two hours dealing with education, and we have had five and a half hours dealing with the prestige of the Government and the constitutional position that arose as a result of the Vote of two days ago. Now it is suggested from the Treasury Bench that we should report Progress. As one of those anxious to get on with this


Measure, I want to register my protest. I am prepared to sit here as long as may be necessary. I want to get on with it and I do not see why we should be asked, at this stage, to report Progress. I hope that the mover of the Motion will be prepared to reconsider the matter, arid that the Committee, or at least those of us who are interested in education, may be given an opportunity to go ahead. The Division, at the end of a five and a half hour Debate, showed an attendance 460 strong. We have not got 46 in the Chamber now. Those of us who are here now are here because we are interested in education and we are prepared to stay.

Mr. Tinker: I want to see an end to this farce of asking the Committee to continue. One hon. and learned Member calls a count, saying that there are not enough hon. Members to carry on, while another hon. and learned Member—I do not know whether he means it or not—says, "Carry on for several hours." Surely, that kind of thing is not meant seriously? It is ridiculous to talk about protesting against closing down now.

Earl Winterton: I support what the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has said. As one who is never afraid to be critical of the Government, and especially of the Prime Minister, I think that it is rather unfair for the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) to say what he has said about the Government action on this matter. On the contrary, since the Division we have had the greatest assistance from the Government, and the Committee has got through many important points with the minimum of ill-feeling and the maximum of desire to help, and it should not go out from any one Member that progress has not been made; the Government are to be congratulated upon the progress that has been made in the last two hours.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — MATERNITY CASES (ACCOMMODATION. NEWCASTLE - UNDERLYME)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

Mr. Mack: The question which I have to bring before the House is one which has aroused very considerable concern in the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and this concern is shared by every section of the community there. It is now nearly to years since the first overtures were made by the borough council for the purpose of establishing in Newcastle-under-Lyme a maternity home. When one takes into consideration the fact that the borough has a population approaching 70,000 and that there are no actual maternity facilities in the borough, and they are dependent upon outside boroughs, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that some cases have to go as far as Lichfield, about 3o miles away, and to Stone, and various other outlying districts, it will be appreciated that a great deal of hardship is being meted out to expectant mothers in my constituency. On 12th December, 1934, the town clerk wrote to the Ministry of Health and suggested that Brampton Tree House could readily be converted into a 12-bed hospital at a cost of £18,000. It was a matter of extreme urgency, and on 20th December of the same year the Ministry replied, turning down the proposal on the grounds that separate small maternity homes were uneconomical from the working point of view and suggesting that the new maternity accommodation should be in connection with the general hospital.
The Ministry then sent on the correspondence to the county council. There was a gap until 11th March, 1935, when the Ministry wrote stating that there was great difficulty in sanctioning a loan for separate maternity accommodation apart from that of the county council. Then followed a rather amazing statement. They said:
It is definitely the intention of the county council to proceed with new hospital provision at St. John's Institution, Newcastle, at an early date and develop this institution into a public health hospital.
The Ministry urged agreement between the two councils,, and contact was established between the borough council and the county council and certain proposals were made by the county council which were thoroughly unacceptable to the Corporation of Newcastle. For example the prices proposed were too high and they were also quite dissatisfied with the treatment of the inmates of that hospital, which is a poor law hospital in the


borough comprising 400 beds. The Corporation of Newcastle-under-Lyme rightly desired the active participation by the management of this maternity home, but that again was unacceptable to the county council. In 1937 this St. John's Institution was pulled down. The patients were removed. A strong protest followed from the Newcastle-under-Lyme rural council and also the Kidsgrove Urban District Council. Public meetings were held, strong dissension was expressed, and a deputation attended the Ministry and asked that new blocks should be built before the old ones were destroyed. In spite of this, the whole institution was demolished, no alternative accommodation was put up, and the county council had no intention of buildinc, a general hospital at Newcastle. I want to say to my right hon. and learned Friend who, I believe, has come into the Ministry with a fresh and vigorous mind, that the Ministry of Health in the past has done everything it can by sins of omission, rather than by sins of commission, to frustrate the possibility of achieving this desired aim in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and no steps have been taken to put the necessary pressure upon the county council to erect a hospital inside the borough.
This, I ask the House to bear in mind, was at a time just before the war, when temporary hospital accommodation was being put up all over the country. On 20th May, 1939, the town clerk wrote to the Ministry and proposed as an alternative, that the Victoria Nursing Home, at a cost of between £11,000 and £12,000, would make a very good maternity home for the borough. Plans were prepared by Dr. White, the medical officer of health, and were sent to the Ministry but again, a little later, on. 25th July, 1939, the Ministry turned down those plans. Then followed a gap of nearly four years when the question was again pressed with the Ministry, owing to the insistent clamour and demand. But the Ministry replied in May, 1943, that they could not do much about it. They blamed the outbreak of war, they said there was a restriction on all works which involved capital expenditure, there was the difficulty of the use of materials and labour, and they argued as an excuse, that a scheme for post-war hospital planning may—note this—include alternative accommodation on a regional basis. The Minister wrote further on 26th

May last year stating that he was prepared to consider a proposal for temporary accommodation and asking for further details as to cost and so on. Again, on 27th July it was stated that the Haywood War Memorial Hospital at Stoke-on-Trent was building a new maternity block, and it was asked that the Newcastle council should apply for some accommodation at this hospital. This statement was made in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Health were well aware that the Haywood Hospital was overcrowded and that a new block could not be completed for some considerable time. The report of the medical officer of health for Newcastle-under-Lyme shows that infant mortality in the borough was 54.1 per 1,000, which is rather higher than the average rate for the whole country. To a large extent—and I know that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), who has been closely associated with the borough for a long time, will bear me out—slums have been largely eradicated and tenants have been re-housed. Having regard to all these circumstances this relatively high death rate has been exacerbated, in good part, by lack of accommodation.
There was a further proposal that "The Limes," Porthill, might make another alternative home, but here again the borough council were faced with the difficulty that it had been taken over by authorities, who were not prepared to release it. It is almost impossible, at the present moment, to get any suitable homes for that purpose in Newcastle. A stormy interview took place at the Ministry of Health on 25th November, at which the hon. Member for Stone and myself were present. The outcome of that interview was that the Ministry said they were prepared to consider the adaptation of a private house, if a suitable one could be obtained. As I have said, it is not possible to obtain a suitable one, and we find that a progressive non-county borough is subservient to a county council. I wish to make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the dilatory action of the county council and their lack of consideration, and the fact that they have not put forward a progressive policy in this matter, has caused the strongest indignation in Newcastle. In my opinion, every civilian community should ensure that there should be a bed available for every expectant


mother. If one is breeding chicks I think more regard is paid to the installation of incubators for them, than is often paid to human life. I am not indicting the Minister personally, because I know he is a new entrant to his position, but I say very emphatically that it is ignominious for a borough of the size and importance of Newcastle-under-Lyme to be placed in this position and to be asked, in view of transport difficulties and other considerations which must spring to the mind, to send pregnant women to a neighbouring hospital where, be it noted, they cannot be assured admission owing to overcrowding.
Having regard to the overtures, which have been protracted over a period of 10 years, it is an indictment of the inefficiency of the Ministry of Health as well as the county council. The borough council has shown great patience and I can understand the indignation of the town clerk, and other officials who have been working hard, at the dilatory manner in which this matter has been handled. While we recognise the many difficulties of war-time we want from the Minister an assurance that the specific and special needs of Newcastle will be attended to; it is no satisfaction for us to have to go to a small town and find there no beds for expectant mothers, whose cases have thus to be neglected. If I had the time I could give examples concerning many women who have suffered great pain and mental and economic stress as a consequence of this treatment. I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take this matter seriously in hand, and will see not only that closer liaison is established between the borough council and his Ministry but himself take immediate steps to see that provision is made for whatever alternative accommodation can be provided.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I can thoroughly substantiate what the hon. Member has said about the needs of Newcastle-under-Lyme, but I must question his statement that those needs are the responsibility of the county council. It is not so. They are willing, and will be at any time, to help in any way possible and, if it is possible for the Minister or anyone else to tell them of any way in which this difficulty can be overcome, they have offered to do all they possibly can. I will not say any more, though I could say a lot, but I do not wish to encroach

on the time the Minister has left for his reply.

Mr. Mack: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement, though I know he is speaking with great sincerity. My information is that the county council has not been at all helpful in the matter.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I make no sort of complaint that this matter has been raised. I am advised that at the interview in November last, to which the hon. Member has referred, both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) were most helpful. I entirely accept that North Staffordshire, which includes Newcastle-under-Lyme, has been unfortunate in this matter in recent years, but I hope to satisfy the hon. Member that we are doing our best and that we are making progress. May I mention one or two matters which are, and were in November, common ground. The first is that it is recognised nowadays that small independent maternity homes are not the best, or indeed proper, provision for this very important service. There should always be association with a big hospital for cases of difficulty and complication. I do not remember a single word of criticism in the two days' Debate on the National Health Service in respect of the proposal that such homes as these should be the concern of the new joint authorities, which means that neither county nor non-county boroughs under that scheme will have such homes. Consequently, except as an emergency measure, one would not contemplate the bringing into existence of a small, local, entirely independent maternity home.
I do not think I can usefully go back to 1934–35—I would rather deal with the present and the future—except to say that it is true that for some years before the war the borough had been pressing for this sort of home and the position was this: There were well-advanced plans for replacing the public assistance institution in Newcastle-under-Lyme by a new general hospital, which was going to contain 22 maternity beds. The unfortunate thing is that that institution is no more, and the outbreak of the war prevented the building of a new hospital on that scale. That position was accepted by Newcastle-under-Lyme from September, 1939, to April, 1943, and no further approach was made to my Department during that period. The new approach was


made at a time when everything was very much more difficult. It is not only that those difficulties have arisen, but it should be appreciated by all concerned that these war years have given rise to a very greatly increased demand for lying-in accommodation in a hospital or maternity home. I suppose there are various causes for that. One is crowded home conditions, another is the absence of neighbours and home help. I rather think that the absence of the husband means that the wife is more inclined to seek such accommodation. It is not quite fair to describe my Department as supine in this matter. In 1938 there were in England and Wales 11,500 maternity beds; to-day there are 15,500, including 2,500 emergency maternity beds.

Mr. Mack: I do not dispute that at all, and I recognise that progress has been made, but my case is that there has been no apparent progress in Newcastle.

Mr. Willink: I am coming to that. In addition, 500 more beds have been approved. That can be put in another way. The beds that were available before the war took approximately one-third of the births. The beds at present available take one-half of the births. That is, roughly, what we believe to be the increase in demand taking it all over. Whether the demand on that scale will continue after the war one does not know. On that basis of demand, Newcastle-under-Lyme ought to have access to something like 30 beds. I think that what I have said was common ground at the interview on 29th November last year. On that occasion one or other of my hon. Friends made the suggestion that, as a temporary expedient, Newcastle-under-Lyme, contrary to our principles, which are against independent small maternity homes, should be allowed to establish a small maternity home of their own. That proposition was approved, and we said that if the borough could find suitable premises, to which we felt a hut should be added, we would approve it, subject only to Ministry of Works sanction. Unfortunately, from then to now we have heard of no such premises, and one knows how difficult it is to find them. During that period we have not been stagnating. There is a hospital to which my hon. Friend referred, the Burslem, Haywood and Tunstall Voluntary Hospital, which

is nearer to Stoke, but which has in recent times been taking more Newcastle patients than Stoke patients. In the scheme we envisage everybody will not have a maternity home just round the corner. That will not be possible with the larger units. The Burslem Hospital is adding 18 more maternity beds with our approval and our assistance in getting priorities. We hope that they will be ready by June.

Mr. Mack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to say what proportion of these 18 additional beds will be allocated to Newcastle?

Mr. Willink: The hospital does not allocate its beds in that way, but it has been taking more Newcastle patients than Stoke patients. In addition to that substantial extension of the Burslem Hospital, the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent owns a hospital known as The Limes Maternity Hospital, and a hutted extension has been approved with 16 new maternity beds. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we received a letter on Monday last from the town clerk of the Stoke-on-Trent Council saying that that council is prepared to co-operate by setting aside not fewer than four of these additional beds for Newcastle patients, subject to the satisfactory settlement of details between the two parties. There should, therefore, be available within a few months 34 additional maternity beds. These numbers sound small, but I can assure the House that 34 additional beds are and should be sufficient to meet the needs of a population of just on 100,000.
That is the way it works out. There is one birth per 70 of the population. One bed takes 20 confinements in a year, and the hon. Member will find—anybody can work it out from that—in fact, that the provision needed to meet the demand of half the expectant mothers who we understand desire lying-in accommodation, is one bed to about 3,000 of the population, so therefore 34 beds is a very substantial addition indeed. The hope I would express is that Newcastle-under-Lyme will not be too insistent in its demand that it must have its own specific maternity home. That is not what is envisaged in our new health service. I hope that the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and the hon. Member himself, will be as grateful for this co-operative effort on the part of Stoke as I am at the Ministry of Health.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.